Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 834036
Inconsistency in sync status view via sync mgmt and Dashboard sync overview for very large repos
Last modified: 2014-03-18 13:38:35 EDT
Description of problem: There is inconsistency between what sync status view is via Sync Management and Dashboard Sync Overview. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): observed with 1.0.1 How reproducible: Try syncing large repos and towards the end of the sync, we can observe this inconsistency issue. Steps to Reproduce: 1. sync large repos like http://download.devel.redhat.com/released/F-15/GOLD/Everything/x86_64/os/ 2. 3. DashBoard Sync Overview shows, the sync has completed "100%", But Sync Mgmt does not show, the status as "Sync Complete" From the above 2 different states, I feel there is some inconsistency for the state of syncs for very large repos. I will be attaching the screen-shots shortly. Build : 2012-06-18.1/ RAM : 2GB SWAP : 2GB REPO synced : Single repo F17 (27.1 GB) Actual results: Inconsistency in sync status Expected results: Additional info:
Created attachment 593280 [details] Status as 100% from Sync DashBoard
Created attachment 593281 [details] Status not as 'Sync Complete' under Sync Mgmt
The below comment is from Ivan Necas. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828977#c11 The problem is the progress shows the ratio of downloaded/all packages. But it doesn't include the time required: 1. for calculating metadata 2. removing orphaned packages. Both actions take quite a lot of time (I know that calculating metadata for large repo can take 2+ hours. The important thing is that it finished at the end and doesn't get canceled (what this BZ is about). There are already some activities on the Pulp side to improve generating manifests: right now it's using createrepo utility, that doesn't provide the progress information. I don't thing this issues are worth z-stream.
getting rid of 6.0.0 version since that doesn't exist
This bug was closed because of a lack of activity. If you feel this bug should be reconsidered for attention please feel free to re-open the bug with a comment stating why it should be reconsidered.