Bug 448635 - PackageKit gets updates after resume from suspend/hibernate
Summary: PackageKit gets updates after resume from suspend/hibernate
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: PackageKit
Version: 9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robin Norwood
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-05-28 00:03 UTC by Daniel Berrangé
Modified: 2008-06-03 08:40 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-06-03 08:40:40 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Daniel Berrangé 2008-05-28 00:03:50 UTC
Description of problem:
It appears that packagekit will instantly check for updates when network
re-connects after a resume from suspend/hibernate. The system is already doing
alot of disk I/O at this point in time, and having PK do work causes a
significant delay / poor interactive response after resume. If PK were to delay
its update checks until 5-10 minutes after network reconnects this would give a
much more pleasant user experiance upon resume.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
PackageKit-0.1.12-10.20080505.fc9.i386

How reproducible:
Often

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Resume from hibernate
2. Try to use the machine immediately after network has reconnected
3.
  
Actual results:
Very poor response due to large amounts of I/O from PK   get-updates.py

Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Richard Hughes 2008-05-28 09:11:53 UTC
In 0.2.1 we wait 10 minutes before doing the check. In the 0.1.x codebase we
wait 10 seconds. Do you think this is of sufficient importance to backport the
new code into 0.1.x for F9? I'm going to be pushing 0.2.3 into F9 in a few weeks
time anyway.

Comment 2 Daniel Berrangé 2008-05-28 13:21:30 UTC
Its not super critical - waiting until you're  ready to push 0.2.3 into F9
updates is fine - don't waste time on a short-lived backport.

Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2008-06-03 08:40:40 UTC
Okay, cool, thanks.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.