On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 07:17 PM, Jay Turner wrote:
Actually, following up on my own post, I need to clarify something.
license for RHEL 2.1 states that if you have support (which includes
for one install, then you will have it for all installations. So, in
case, if you are in compliance, then all of your installations would
RHN support and there would be no need to download the errata from RHN
push it out to other machines. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, there *is* a need actually.
Let's say Joe has 50 RHEL servers, all pretty much identical, and
properly licensed. There is a flurry of security activity one week and
it takes about 50MB of new packages to patch one system. That's not
much of a reach. Each of the 50 servers downloads 50MB of packages
through https (i.e. not cached anywhere) over Joe's single business
class DSL connection. 2500MB of downloads, split up across 50 clients,
all hitting a DSL connection at once (not to mention the RHN servers).
This is lunacy.
Most other distros permit larger installations to have their own local
package repositories, and this is what would make the most sense. I
understand that Red Hat has a product that will do this, but the cost
is far above the means of someone like Joe.
The centralization of RHN is part of the driving force, IMHO, behind
projects like Current and Yum. It would be far grander, I think, to
have the slick RHN interface on the front end and the local repository
on the back end.
So getting back to your example, yes, there is a need for RHEL
customers to download one copy of a package and push it out to other
C. Magnus Hedemark
"The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not." - Mark Twain