I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

raymano · 2007-04-03 13:44:25

Hi all,

Besides the KISS principle that Arch adheres to, what kept me with Arch for the first couple of weeks was the speed of updates (1.5MB/s for North America) from ftp.archlinux.org. I used to be able to install a full KDE system from the network in under 30 minutes. I have been an avid Arch user and advocate for at least a year now.

Then came the slowing down of my updates because of bandwidth throtteling on ftp.archlinux.org and having to change to a different mirror.
Now comes the announcement of moving to a kernel-based ISO release. This means more space needed on the mirrors and slower repos because of people downloading these new ISOs every time a new one is released.

As much as I love Arch and it's community I don't like the new direction Arch is taking.

Last edited by raymano (2007-04-03 13:46:36)

lucke · 2007-04-03 13:49:51

Why would people download new ISO every time it's released?

Once you install your system, you can keep it up to date with pacman -Syu. Every time a new kernel gets released, install disc will be simply refreshed with newer package set. It affects only people installing Arch.

bwalk · 2007-04-03 14:02:31

I am interested why this method of release cycle was choosen. For me it seems a lot of work, the kernel release cycle is what, about 2 months? Are there that much changes in arch that every kernel release a new iso should be used? I can't see the benefits, maybe someone can light me up please.

RaisedFist · 2007-04-03 14:20:16

bwalk, who said there is a ISO release for each new kernel release? I'm new to arch (3 months), but I saw 0.8 release is more months away from the 0.7.2 one.

And I don't understand why people don't try other mirrors. What would happen if there was only the ftp.archlinux.org server? Who would sustain the costs for bandwidth?

forkboy · 2007-04-03 14:35:48

It says on the front page. I'm probably being dumb here but can we still just pacman -Syu every so often and always be up to date i.e. never have to reinstall?

aradu · 2007-04-03 14:37:37

I'm sure there's another mirror you can use that gives the same speed. Arch's mirrors are great, I'm rarely getting speeds below 1500kb/s, it's usually around 2000kb/s.

raymano wrote:

This means more space needed on the mirrors and slower repos because of people downloading these new ISOs every time a new one is released.

I'm not sure why you'd want to download a new ISO release each time there's a new version. You install it once, then just keep updating.

The decision on the new release cycle is a good move. It's more logical to the way Arch works. However, it's not necessary to release a new ISO with each kernel update, if that was the plan.

dtw · 2007-04-03 14:45:35

This is useless rant.

First, if you have a problem with the throttling of the Arch ftp server I suggest you put your money where you mouth is and slap a fscking massive donation in the Arch tin. Otherwise stop whining.

Second, Arch is a rolling release distro. If people are still downloading and reinstalling Arch everytime a new ISO is released then there is a fundamental lack of understanding in the Arch concept amongst those people and _their_ ignorance is harming the distro - I suggest you go and bitch at them. You can also bitch at all the people that don't use a mirror while your at it but I guess that includes yourself...

It is not the job of the Arch team to babysit or account for the minority of idiots who mis-use/mis-understand the distro and its facilities. The Arch team do a good job of balancing what is best for them and for the majority of the community and I'm sure they just don't have time for crap like this.

Zer0 · 2007-04-03 15:07:17

1) I agree with dtw.. if your upset with the throttling of the main server then "$ is king"... It costs to run these things and many many users were not switching mirrors (including me) from the default. I'm sure it was costing and arm & leg. As for the speed.. I'm sure things will be ironed out soon, this is a big change for a lot of users and there are already solutions like rankmirrors and aria2 scripts.

2) I for one download the new arch ISO's every time a final comes out so I have it on hand. I DO NOT reinstall with this new ISO because arch's rolling release works as expected. I download the FTP ISO, and I use the bittorrent method to offset load on the servers. When arch starts with this new release every kernel version I will only download the ISO's maybe 1nce or 2ce a year.

3) I'm all for the new changes! I say "bring it", I'm sure the dev's have had a fair amount of discussion about these changes before they were finalized. I think with these new changes Arch is still staying with KISS if not more now then ever. These changes make it KISS for the developers.

raymano · 2007-04-03 15:22:57

lucke wrote:

Why would people download new ISO every time it's released?
You install your system, you can keep it up to date with pacman -Syu. Every time a new kernel gets released, install disc will be simply refreshed with newer package set. It affects only people installing Arch.

You are only thinking of the people that already have Arch installed. What about the distributers of ISOs? What about new users? What about the additional bandwidth that you're wasting because of the mirrors trying to pull the huge ISOs every time one is released. Also what about keeping the older ISOs on the repos. Is Arch only going to keep the latest ISOs on its servers?

The reason I am bringing this up is because of my love for Arch Linux and it's community. If I didn't care I would not have said anything.

dtw wrote:

This is useless rant.
First, if you have a problem with the throttling of the Arch ftp server I suggest you put your money where you mouth is and slap a fscking massive donation in the Arch tin. Otherwise stop whining.
Second, Arch is a rolling release distro. If people are still downloading and reinstalling Arch everytime a new ISO is released then there is a fundamental lack of understanding in the Arch concept amongst those people and _their_ ignorance is harming the distro - I suggest you go and bitch at them. You can also bitch at all the people that don't use a mirror while your at it but I guess that includes yourself...
It is not the job of the Arch team to babysit or account for the minority of idiots who mis-use/mis-understand the distro and its facilities. The Arch team do a good job of balancing what is best for them and for the majority of the community and I'm sure they just don't have time for crap like this.

I would also be very happy to donate money towards Arch. Most community based distros ask for help when they need it and the community chips in. I don't think saying "put your money where you mouth is and slap a fscking massive donation" is the way to do it.

Weeks · 2007-04-03 15:28:51

The new release schedule isn't really keeping it simple - it's keeping it hard-work, needlessly.

With each new release testers will have to find any unforeseen bugs. Users will also download the new ISO nevertheless because not everyone realises arch has a "rolling release" mechanism - they'll think "oh a new version of a distribution I'll download that!"

I really don't see what's wrong with the current system. The only problem is that outsiders may think that arch isn't an active project, or slowly developed. But this is a PR problem. And something that can be mitigated with adequate explanations and marketing.

[edit] if the developers are worried that the ISO won't be up-to-date enough for installation (wrong kernel version, lack of a particular program), more addons can be produced. The user can either mount this via a usb key/floppy, access it via the network.

Last edited by Weeks (2007-04-03 15:33:05)

arox1 · 2007-04-03 15:36:35

What about codenames?
We will stay on Voodoo forever?

brain0 · 2007-04-03 15:39:42

raymano wrote:

Besides the KISS principle that Arch adheres to, what kept me with Arch for the first couple of weeks was the speed of updates (1.5MB/s for North America) from ftp.archlinux.org. I used to be able to install a full KDE system from the network in under 30 minutes. I have been an avid Arch user and advocate for at least a year now.

There are now enough mirrors for Arch. With some recent changes to our rsync setup, all official mirrors should now be up to date within a day after an update. There are also fast mirrors among them.

Now comes the announcement of moving to a kernel-based ISO release. This means more space needed on the mirrors and slower repos because of people downloading these new ISOs every time a new one is released.

We tried to release that often in the past, but it didn't work. Doing this is necessary as there will be much less problems when the installer has the most recent kernel instead of a one year old one. People have already been encouraged to use the torrents for iso downloads and many people are seeding them all the time.

Weeks · 2007-04-03 15:39:45

We should really change our name to Voodoo Linux

brain0 · 2007-04-03 15:41:08

arox1 wrote:

What about codenames?
We will stay on Voodoo forever?

I don't think so. Actually I have no idea what happens to the codenames, but we will figure something out.

dtw · 2007-04-03 16:00:07

At the moment the installer has been under some heavy development so releases have inevitably focused on changes to it. However, once the installer is completely finished, barring developmental tweaks, mkinicpio hook changes, etc, then, in practice, all that will change between 2.6.x and 2.6.x+1 in _some_ kernel cycles will be the pkgs. You might see one kernel release cycle with no updates to the installer at all.

Does this seem worth it? Well, it's in response to demand from the community for more releases - so go figure. Most non-Arch users don't realise that very little changes in each ISO release but this should please them and I think most of the ISO builds can be easily automated these days.

crouse · 2007-04-03 16:16:28

I actually think it all makes alot of sense myself..... New iso matches new kernel .... that's pretty freakin simple The install iso's are just snapshots of the system at a point in time anyway..... at least now it's not a totally arbitrary point.

As for the mirror system, I like that alot now too, took me a while to rework my private mirror to the available rsyncable mirrors, but with Dale's help, it's working like a champ This makes sense too...... the archlinux.org mirror was being overrun as more members signed on and started running arch.... so "something" had to be done obviously.

However, DTW "It is not the job of the Arch team to babysit or account for the minority of idiots who mis-use/mis-understand the distro and its facilities. " ...... please don't forget that archlinux.org was/is set as the default repo for pacman in ALL new installs (even the most current iso, i checked) ....... seems like that might need to be changed in the next iso release. It was last time I looked, also the default server to mirror in the ArchLinux wiki tutorial on setting up mirrors...... so, the dev's shouldn't be to taken aback by some frustration on the part of normal users when this comes up. I guess I'm saying, no one's perfect, and the whole throttling down archlinux.org and shutting off rsync mirrors could have been handled a little better, but hindsight is 20/20. As more than one person stated in the other forum thread +1 ftp.archlinux.org should not be default (for pacman) if its usage is discouraged ......... kinda makes sense to me.......

raymano, anyone running a mirror isn't going to be bothered with downloading a gig or so of iso's when they come out, it won't be that big of a deal. If they are bothered by it, they can block the iso's from rsyncing and not mirror the iso files.

raymano · 2007-04-03 16:50:15

crouse wrote:

raymano, anyone running a mirror isn't going to be bothered with downloading a gig or so of iso's when they come out, it won't be that big of a deal. If they are bothered by it, they can block the iso's from rsyncing and not mirror the iso files.

Fair enough. But if that happens would'nt that mean that there would'nt be enough mirrors?

Here's my problem and it maybe related to my ISP but I would like some verification if you guys could help me out: I got a list of mirrors for U.S. from /etc/pacman.d/current and wrote the following script:

#!/bin/bash
rankmirrors -u ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/current/os/i686
rankmirrors -u ftp://ftp.nethat.com/pub/linux/archlinux/current/os/i686
rankmirrors -u ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/distributions/archlinux/current/os/i686
rankmirrors -u ftp://mirror.cs.vt.edu/pub/ArchLinux/current/os/i686
rankmirrors -u ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/archlinux/current/os/i686

When I run this script the result is:

ftp://ftp.archlinux.org/current/os/i686 : 5.93
ftp://ftp.nethat.com/pub/linux/archlinux/current/os/i686 : unreachable
ftp://ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu/pub/linux/distributions/archlinux/current/os/i686 : unreachable
ftp://mirror.cs.vt.edu/pub/ArchLinux/current/os/i686 : timeout
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/archlinux/current/os/i686 : timeout

That's why my updates are so slow. Can anyone else in North America tell me if they are seeing something else? Or should I take crouse's suggestion and create my own rsync mirror.

Again, I did not mean to write a flame bate. I'm just asking the community to help me with this issue.

Thanks Guys.

Weeks · 2007-04-03 17:25:02

dtw wrote:

Does this seem worth it? Well, it's in response to demand from the community for more releases - so go figure. Most non-Arch users don't realise that very little changes in each ISO release but this should please them.

Erm. Doesn't the community realise there's little point in releasing new ISOs regularly? I mean, I can understand why outsiders don't and why PR and marketing need to be geared in that direction, but arch users? Surely they realise it's not really needed.

dtw wrote:

and I think most of the ISO builds can be easily automated these days.

Yes I was thinking that. But I'd estimate they'd still need to be tested. And that man-power could be better directed elsewhere.

I still think this is needless work. And this whole process could be wiped out with good PR and marketing; all you'd need is a simple explanation on the front-page located where the releases tab is currently.

The only downside to the current arrangement is that there are few news articles about us as we don't release ISOs every 4 months or so. But if our product is good enough it will catch on. Moreover, if we do release ISOs with every kernel release we'll eventually receive the same amount of press as we do currently; the press will surely realise that each arch release isn't that significant as it's done every 2 months anyway, often automated.

raymano · 2007-04-03 17:36:44

Erm. Doesn't the community realise there's little point in releasing new ISOs regularly? I mean, I can understand why outsiders don't and why PR and marketing need to be geared in that direction, but arch users? Surely they realise it's not really needed.

Weeks, I agree with you. If the problem is tying an install to the latest kernel, I think a better approach would be a script or app that pulls the necessary files together from the repos and builds the ISO on the fly. Here's what I'm thinking:

mkarchiso -k [kernel name] -v [kernel verion] -t [ISO type]

where ISO type can be "ftp", "full", or any other install that we haven't though of yet, such as "DVD" or "USB".

E.G.:

mkarchiso -k kernel26beyond -v "2.6.19.beyond2-1" -t ftp

This can be accomplished with something like gradgrind's larch. It will also save arch from having to keep all the ISOs. You want it you build it.

Last edited by raymano (2007-04-03 17:47:17)

Weeks · 2007-04-03 17:54:55

If the latest kernel boots the machine and allows you access to your hard-disk and network-card then updating the kernel can wait until the base system is installed. User-space programs can be installed by the current "addons" system.

Your idea is good but requires Linux installed. I suppose someone could build a windows installer, but again it seems like needless work.

But is there really a problem with the 2.6.16 kernel that 7.2 has, and whatever updated version 8.0 has? If there's not then releasing ISOs every kernel release in a rolling-release distribution seems really pointless. I mean, okay, try to release ISO a little more often, but releasing one every kernel release seems crazy, a needless redirection of man-power, a reduction of possible press and detrimental to bandwidth (baring in mind there was a front-page item complaining about the amount of users using ftp.archlinux.org). If they need a milestone what about every 5 months?

Last edited by Weeks (2007-04-03 17:59:55)

paulr · 2007-04-03 18:26:48

I don't see Kernel releases "regularly" ; I presume they're only going to release for the major releases.

The only possible downsides to this is the ArchLinux devs can't control enhancements to the installer releases quite so easily, as they'll be almost 'synced' to the distros not to the desired release times.

The installer doesn't strike me as being a massively important part of Arch ; it seems to work fine, it's KISS, of course and unless something spectacular happens it is going to carry on doing the job well. It's a mystery to me why everyone says it's so complex to install ; with the Beginners Guide and the Docs it's pretty simple, unless you have some wild and wacky hardware - which will be a problem for any distro.

If ftp.archlinux.org is a problem there may be a case for throttling it entirely and making everyone use mirrors ; especially if the Distro continues to grow ?

tpowa · 2007-04-03 18:30:06

hrm about iso creation, you can use the 'archboot' package, it is used for 0.8 iso too

dtw · 2007-04-03 18:43:29

crouse wrote:

IHowever, DTW "It is not the job of the Arch team to babysit or account for the minority of idiots who mis-use/mis-understand the distro and its facilities. " ...... please don't forget that archlinux.org was/is set as the default repo for pacman in ALL new installs (even the most current iso, i checked)

This is quite true - thanks for correcting that aspect. The default mirror issue should be fixed by the devs but as, far as I can tell, they've not confirmed that they will.

Mr Green · 2007-04-03 19:12:32

I was told that putting money in the Arch tin was not the problem it was bandwidth.... ;-S

Last edited by Mr Green (2007-04-03 19:14:53)

jf/ · 2007-04-03 19:25:59

dtw wrote:

Does this seem worth it? Well, it's in response to demand from the community for more releases - so go figure. Most non-Arch users don't realise that very little changes in each ISO release but this should please them

uh - but why should we bother about pleasing them? (non-Arch users). As for the "community", if u're referring to the Arch community, then i agree - releases have been coming waay too slowly (but i'm not complaining! i know and acknowledge that it's just a "feel good factor" for the most part for me), but this "every kernel release"-thing - it seems to be like swinging to the other extreme.

Weeks wrote:

The only downside to the current arrangement is that there are few news articles about us as we don't release ISOs every 4 months or so. But if our product is good enough it will catch on. Moreover, if we do release ISOs with every kernel release we'll eventually receive the same amount of press as we do currently; the press will surely realise that each arch release isn't that significant as it's done every 2 months anyway, often automated.

u sound as if Arch's goal is popularity. Is it? should it even care about popularity?

Arch Linux

#1 2007-04-03 13:44:25

I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#2 2007-04-03 13:49:51

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#3 2007-04-03 14:02:31

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#4 2007-04-03 14:20:16

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#5 2007-04-03 14:35:48

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#6 2007-04-03 14:37:37

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#7 2007-04-03 14:45:35

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#8 2007-04-03 15:07:17

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#9 2007-04-03 15:22:57

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#10 2007-04-03 15:28:51

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#11 2007-04-03 15:36:35

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#12 2007-04-03 15:39:42

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#13 2007-04-03 15:39:45

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#14 2007-04-03 15:41:08

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#15 2007-04-03 16:00:07

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#16 2007-04-03 16:16:28

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#17 2007-04-03 16:50:15

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#18 2007-04-03 17:25:02

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#19 2007-04-03 17:36:44

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#20 2007-04-03 17:54:55

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#21 2007-04-03 18:26:48

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#22 2007-04-03 18:30:06

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#23 2007-04-03 18:43:29

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#24 2007-04-03 19:12:32

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

#25 2007-04-03 19:25:59

Re: I'm not happy with the new Arch changes

Board footer