[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#487946: 'apt-get update' considers connection failures non-transient



There is no reason to have multiple sources in your
/etc/apt/sources.list file, if apt-get update/upgrade only cares about
the first one!

I use multiple sources in the hopes that

(a) The load should be distributed among those mirrors.

(b) Multiple downloads should be happening at once.  At least two
    or three, because any one download could stall and I don't want
    to waste time.

(c) If a download from some mirror stalls, time when my bandwidth
    could be in use should not be  wasted waiting for it. Downloads
    from available mirrors should continue, and if the number of
    downloads in progress drops too low, then a download from an
    additional mirror ought to be triggered to insure that bandwidth
    on my end remains reliably useful.

(d) If a package turns out to be unavailable from some mirror, or if
    the download of that package from that source is still incomplete
    and stalled when there is available bandwidth because other
    downloads are finished, or if checksum of a downloaded package
    fails, that package ought to be downloaded from elsewhere rather
    than causing a failure.  Apt should fail only if there are packages
    it can not get from ANY source.

(e) A mirror that stalls or fails a lot should be lowered in priority
    over time, both so that its load is reduced as it apparently needs,
    and so my bandwidth is usually dedicated to downloading from the
    most reliable mirrors.  I don't want any of the mirrors to be
    considered 'primary' - treating one as such just because of its
    position in the sources list is crazy!

I'm pretty sure I remember these things all being true, way back in
Lenny or Wheezy.  When did they get disabled?  Multiple sources now
make apt take LONGER and fail MORE instead of saving time failing LESS
as they used to.

				Bear


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: