dnf doesn't check for rpmdb lock?

[Richard Shaw]

I remember frequently (to my dismay) getting messages from yum saying that
another process had a lock on the RPM database.

Due to a recent rash of issues with the akmods package I have been
investigating why the kmods are not getting installed.

Out of curiosity I tried running two dnf update instances in two different
terminals and I did not get the message, in fact it acted like nothing was
wrong!

Of course I hit "n" to not install the updates so I'm not sure what would
happen if I had hit "y"...

Am I missing something here?

Thanks,
Richard

[Eric Griffith]

I tried to do an install and an update on two different terminals on my
machine yesterday. The second one didn't yell about an rpmdb lock but it
did say that it was waiting on a process. So unless it broke from an update
last night / this morning then idk
On Jul 16, 2015 11:20 AM, "Richard Shaw" <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  I remember frequently (to my dismay) getting messages from yum saying
> that
>  another process had a lock on the RPM database.
>
>  Due to a recent rash of issues with the akmods package I have been
>  investigating why the kmods are not getting installed.
>
>  Out of curiosity I tried running two dnf update instances in two different
>  terminals and I did not get the message, in fact it acted like nothing was
>  wrong!
>
>  Of course I hit "n" to not install the updates so I'm not sure what would
>  happen if I had hit "y"...
>
>  Am I missing something here?
>
>  Thanks,
>  Richard
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>

[Przemek Klosowski]

On 07/16/2015 01:19 PM, Eric Griffith wrote:
>  I tried to do an install and an update on two different terminals on 
>  my machine yesterday. The second one didn't yell about an rpmdb lock 
>  but it did say that it was waiting on a process. So unless it broke 
>  from an update last night / this morning then idk
>
>  On Jul 16, 2015 11:20 AM, "Richard Shaw" <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com 
>  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>      I remember frequently (to my dismay) getting messages from yum
>      saying that another process had a lock on the RPM database.
>
>      Due to a recent rash of issues with the akmods package I have been
>      investigating why the kmods are not getting installed.
>
>      Out of curiosity I tried running two dnf update instances in two
>      different terminals and I did not get the message, in fact it
>      acted like nothing was wrong!
>
>  
So I just did 'dnf update' from two different terminals on the same 
system and allowed the first one to proceed. While it was updating, I 
kept running 'dnf update' in the other terminal, terminating it by not 
giving it an OK to proceed.

The second 'dnf update'  was running, reporting decreasing number of 
upgrades needed, as expected. I don't know what would happen if I 
allowed the second one to proceed---would they mess up the package 
database? would two upgrades collide writing to the same packaged files?

[Christopher]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Przemek Klosowski
<przemek.klosowski(a)nist.gov&gt; wrote:
>  On 07/16/2015 01:19 PM, Eric Griffith wrote:
>
>  I tried to do an install and an update on two different terminals on my
>  machine yesterday. The second one didn't yell about an rpmdb lock but it did
>  say that it was waiting on a process. So unless it broke from an update last
>  night / this morning then idk
>
>  On Jul 16, 2015 11:20 AM, "Richard Shaw" <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > I remember frequently (to my dismay) getting messages from yum saying that
> > another process had a lock on the RPM database.
> >
> > Due to a recent rash of issues with the akmods package I have been
> > investigating why the kmods are not getting installed.
> >
> > Out of curiosity I tried running two dnf update instances in two different
> > terminals and I did not get the message, in fact it acted like nothing was
> > wrong!
> >
>
>
>  So I just did 'dnf update' from two different terminals on the same system
>  and allowed the first one to proceed. While it was updating, I kept running
>  'dnf update' in the other terminal, terminating it by not giving it an OK to
>  proceed.
>
>  The second 'dnf update'  was running, reporting decreasing number of
>  upgrades needed, as expected. I don't know what would happen if I allowed
>  the second one to proceed---would they mess up the package database? would
>  two upgrades collide writing to the same packaged files?
>  
I believe I tried this (accidentally) the other day, and the second
one just quit with an error message about another process. In yum, it
would keep retrying, but dnf just seems to give up on the first
collision.

[Michal Luscon]

Hi Richard,

DNF uses three types of locks (metadata, download and rpmdb lock) to 
allow more or less parallel execution of DNF commands.

IIRC, the actual issue with kmods has been already resolved in upstream 
by switching rpmdb lock to blocking mode.

Regards,

Michal

On 07/16/2015 05:20 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>  I remember frequently (to my dismay) getting messages from yum saying
>
>  that another process had a lock on the RPM database.
>
>  Due to a recent rash of issues with the akmods package I have been 
>  investigating why the kmods are not getting installed.
>
>  Out of curiosity I tried running two dnf update instances in two 
>  different terminals and I did not get the message, in fact it acted 
>  like nothing was wrong!
>
>  Of course I hit "n" to not install the updates so I'm not sure what 
>  would happen if I had hit "y"...
>
>  Am I missing something here?
>
>  Thanks,
>  Richard
>
>