Re: 1.0.4 and 1.3.0 released

On 22 May 2002, Hunter Matthews wrote:

> Current may never scale to the extent that RHN does. They have half or a
> dozen people working full time, and Really Big Hardware.

That's about right.. the team is about a dozen people (or was when I 
left).  Most people work on the web management side of the app though 
which is all written in perl.  There were only a couple guys doing the 
python development.

With that said, the biggest bottleneck as far as I could tell seemed to be 
the oracle database.

> However, if someone meant "Running Current locally for our x machines
> works better than our x machines hitting RHN" then possibly.

I think if the app is designed correctly, we should be able to exceed 
RHN's performance, especially with anonymous logins.  It should be 
trivially easy to get multiple back-ends up and going to pump out packages 
with some kind of load balancing or proxy cache.

> The big advantage you'd likely see right now is that while each client
> may in fact be a little slower (compression turned off), you'll be able
> to scale to 20-40-?? simultaenous clients because apache can handle
> simultaneous hits - Current 1.0 can't and won't.

I'm not sure the compression is really going to make that much of a 
difference.  The RPM's themselves are already compressed so recompressing 
them isn't going to buy anything.  I haven't looked enough through the 
header data yet to see if compression would buy anything, but my 
guess is that it would be minimal at best.  That's why benchmarks are so 
handy though..


--Patrick.