On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Les Mikesell wrote: > R P Herrold wrote: >> >> My $0.02 .... I'd love to be shown a path to avoid the >> problems on the 5.3 roll-out > > Do we know exactly what the problem is? I listed some of them in what you trimmed, Les, -- mirror bitflip frontrunning (inadvertent in one case we ran down), iso leak (collateral damage from the first), some in the thundering herd who should know better raising expectations started a cascade outbreak of 'Latest and Greatest' disease; no good deed goes unpunished, it seems > That is, why does yum do something different after a 'yum > clean all'? Shouldn't it be trying all the mirrors anyway > if it fails to get a file for any reason? Otherwise, what's > the point of having the list that generally screws up > caching? I do not see that yum failover is **not** working; indeed it seems to be working just fine in my testing against a 'as designed' "centos-release" package as we ship it. The outcome _I_ see when I hit 'centos.mirror.nac.net' is the failure, a failover, and a success on a later listed peer. The 127.0.0.2 workaround will permit you to test this as well (simulating a dead mirrorlist entry); transparent proxies are out of our control by definition. I am not so interested in trying slow motion debug via mailing list of what a person's setup is, and will (and do) read bugs.centos.org for reports from people who file a formal report > I don't think the answer is to expect the repos to be perfect but rather > to make the clients recover without intervention (and without killing > the good repos too...). patches to yum upstream are still welcome, I assume. Feel free to ask Seth, et al. -- Russ herrold