On 26 Sep 2002 17:46:34 +0200 Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donald F Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > i) resolv.conf can not be written. Happened with both rc2 and rc3. > > Work around: go to text console 2 and rm /mnt/etc/resolv.conf > > and repeat network configuration. For some reason resolv.conf > > is link to /etc/ppp/resolv.conf on my 8.2 Oh, I see problem, > > the absolute links are incorrect when mounted under /mnt/ > > Ah, I see the origin of that problem now, thanks. I've commited a > workaround for that problem in the network code of the CVS. > > Now, do you know who made that silly absolute link? It seems that > it's not the draknet/drakconnect code which does that. Did you > use linuxconf/netconf or whatever? Yes, before installing Smoothwall, I used a modem and then for a couple of weeks, PPPoE and I used one or both of linuxconf/netconf to configure. When I went to straight LAN connection, it either worked with no configuration or I used them again (don't remember). > > Install Time Comment / Question / How to Fix (reduce)? > > > > Installation time seems extremely long compared to what I would > > expect based on install time of RedHat 5.2 from a few years ago. > > When I installed RedHat 5.2 (I think) it took a total of 7 minutes > > for both CDs on a 300MHz Pentium II, SCSI-2 wide cheetah from a > > Yamaha 4416 (ie: 4x4x16x). With the much faster speeds today using > > 52x CD onto IDE of 24MB/sec write speed hard drive and 850 MHz > > Athlon why does it estimate 3 hours and 40 minutes and actually take > > about 75 minutes for 3 CDs. If it is installing about 3x as much say > > 21 minutes on the old hardware and today on faster hardware say only > > twice as fast it should be taking about 10 minutes instead of 75 > > minutes. > > > > Why is install about 8 times longer than it should be? > > Upgrade times are always much longer since the main time > consuming is tied to the size of the rpmdb, and the fact that rpm > needs to execute the %scripts of the previously installed > packages as well as the ones of the new packages. I figured it was scripts, since the CD-ROM and HD activity lights are off more than on. Strange that slow CDs and HD are not limiting factors. I guess this means rpm needs serious efficiency work done on it. It always bothers me when doing "rpm -Uvh " on some rpm that it is so slow---I guess this is where the time is going to during installs/upgrades. Can the rpm scan be cached, or do many rpm's at the same time to avoid so any rpm database scans? > Also, we do install more packages, in general, so it takes more > time. But I multiplied by three to account for this? Merci beaucoup, Don Parsons
