From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4 Description of problem: The search feature for packages on the upgraded satellite (v3.6) is very, very slow. Tests have taken 7 minutes to list packages. This situation did not occur on the previous version of satellite we were using (v3.2) nor on RHN. Server is running RHEL3. Database is external. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rhn-satellite 3.6 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Log in to satellite 2. Goto package search. 3. Enter package name and start search......... Actual Results: Machines takes a lonnnnng time to reach a result. 10+ minutes in some cases. This only became a factor after the upgrade to 3.6 Expected Results: Return the package list in short order Additional info:
I have attached the output to the script originally supplied by J Slagle on 4/19 to Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
the work I did had no effect on the speed. Myself and Vlad both tested package searching on webqa and it seemed to return in reasonable amounts of time. I think it would be worth testing out package searching on a fully sat-synched sat to make sure there isn't some difference. I'll take a look at this and report back.
I tested out package searching on a sat with lots of channels/packages and it was very snappy. Searches returned in 1 second or less.
TESTPLAN: 1) Login to a sat that has multiple channels synched with a large number of packages (1000+) 2) Search -> Packages 3) type a name, libjpeg for example 4) click on the name verify that none of the steps take an unacceptable amount of time (2-3 seconds or more).
on_dev
Verified. Search takes roughly 1 second when searching through 10,000 packages.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2009-1434.html