Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?

[Michael D. Setzer II]

I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently 
upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.

Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install 
from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole 
process. Including install of OS, and then install of a 
number of other packages I use that are not installed by 
default.

Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf 
system update. This system has some more packages 
installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the 
clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, 
but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over 
14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. 

Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked 
while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just 
using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if 
others just run it, and check when done, but seems to 
be a bigger difference in time than it should be.

Thanks and be Safe..


+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor 
(Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 
minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)

BOINC@HOME CREDITS

ROSETTA      68715567.359982 | ABC          
16613838.513356
SETI        110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN    
147926043.499240

[Roger Heflin]

Both spinning disks?  No SSD's involved?
On the upgrade it will have to read the packages from disk and then
write them back to the same disk at a different location as files,
this will cause a lot of extra seeking (maybe 2x slower here)

The laptop drive may be a lower RPM than the other machine disk (if
7200rpm) that would result in 1.5x at least.

You have 2.5x the packages, 2.5x if none of those packages are the
larger packages, which the stuff you installed afterward may be.
Given you have 2.5x the package there may be a lot of stuff you aren't
using.

On the upgrade you also have to delete the current packages after you
install the newer one, another 2x there.

So that is 2.5x2x2 ignoring the hard disk speed, that is about 10x
slower for the upgrade.

From my experience most of the time is disk io and seeks, very little
of it is actaully cpu.    My machines will do an upgrade in about 60
minutes, and that is with all of them having SSD's, so I would expect
it to be much longer with a spinning disk, 14x does not sound that
unreasonable if you have a lot of packages, and a slow laptop HD.

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michael D. Setzer II via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>
> I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
> upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
>
> Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
> from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
> process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
> number of other packages I use that are not installed by
> default.
>
> Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> system update. This system has some more packages
> installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
>
> Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
>
> Thanks and be Safe..
>
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
>  Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
> (Retired)
>  mailto:[e-mail]
>  mailto:[e-mail]
>  Guam - Where America's Day Begins
>  G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
>  http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
> Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
> Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58
> minutes
> (Total Hours: 287,489)
>
> BOINC@HOME CREDITS
>
> ROSETTA      68715567.359982 | ABC
> 16613838.513356
> SETI        110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN
> 147926043.499240
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Samuel Sieb]

On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
>  from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
>  process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
>  number of other packages I use that are not installed by
>  default. 
If it was an install from a live boot, then the "install" process is 
just copying the files directly to the hard drive which is very fast. 
If it is a net install, then after the download, it's just installing 
rpms into a clean partition.

>  Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
>  system update. This system has some more packages
>  installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
>  clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
>  but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
>  14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. 
Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's 
being extra safe in how it writes the files?  A lot more scripts to run?

>  Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
>  while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
>  using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
>  others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
>  be a bigger difference in time than it should be. 
How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade?  Weren't you doing 
the offline upgrade?  The process should be very IO bound, not CPU. 
Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 28 May 2020 at 11:40, Samuel Sieb wrote:

Subject:        	Re: Question on difference between dnf 
upgrade versus clean install?
To:             	users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
From:           	Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net&gt;
Date sent:      	Thu, 28 May 2020 11:40:39 -0700
Send reply to:  	Community support for Fedora 
users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;

>  On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
>  > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
>  > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
>  > number of other packages I use that are not installed by
>  > default.
>  
>  If it was an install from a live boot, then the "install" process is 
>  just copying the files directly to the hard drive which is very fast. 
>  If it is a net install, then after the download, it's just installing 
>  rpms into a clean partition.
>   
Both where from the same usb device with the live boot. 
Both hard drives are 7200 rpm.

>  > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
>  > system update. This system has some more packages
>  > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
>  > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
>  > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
>  > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
>  
>  Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's 
>  being extra safe in how it writes the files?  A lot more scripts to run?
>   
Yes, would expect 2 or 3 times as long, but 15 seems 
way to much. It is interesting that each of the updates 
for packages both on upgrade and cleaning seems to be 
from 1 second to 6 seconds. The process shows 10140 
with 1/2 being the installs, and 1/2 being the cleanup 
and then 10140 verifies. Seems it is doing something 
every single time?

>  > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
>  > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
>  > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
>  > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
>  > be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
>  
>  How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade?  Weren't you doing 
>  the offline upgrade?  The process should be very IO bound, not CPU. 
>  Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one. 
After doing
the dnf system-upgrade reboot It comes up 
with a graphic screen that just shows it is doing upgrade 
and to not shut down. Very little info.
Ctrl-ESC does show it doing the process, and shows 
each package and the count as it goes with time of each 
step.
Was able to do Ctrl-Alt-F? Think it was F6 that finally 
gave a command line login. Was able to login as root, 
and just ran top command. Noticed that CPU was 
showing 100% other numbers all seemed low. Never 
saw CPU change from 100%, and it only showed dnf 
process as high activity. 

>  _____________ 
__________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor 
(Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 
minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)

BOINC@HOME CREDITS

ROSETTA      68715567.359982 | ABC          
16613838.513356
SETI        110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN    
147926043.499240

[Michael D. Setzer II]

On 28 May 2020 at 13:37, Roger Heflin wrote:

From:           	Roger Heflin <rogerheflin(a)gmail.com&gt;
Date sent:      	Thu, 28 May 2020 13:37:28 -0500
Subject:        	Re: Question on difference between dnf 
upgrade versus clean install?
To:             	Community support for Fedora users 
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
Copies to:      	"Michael D. Setzer II" 
<mikes(a)guam.net&gt;

>  Both spinning disks?  No SSD's involved? 
Both disk regular
7200 rpm drives 

>  On the upgrade it will have to read the packages from disk and then
>  write them back to the same disk at a different location as files,
>  this will cause a lot of extra seeking (maybe 2x slower here)
>  
>  The laptop drive may be a lower RPM than the other machine disk (if
>  7200rpm) that would result in 1.5x at least.
>  
>  You have 2.5x the packages, 2.5x if none of those packages are the
>  larger packages, which the stuff you installed afterward may be.
>  Given you have 2.5x the package there may be a lot of stuff you aren't
>  using.
>  
>  On the upgrade you also have to delete the current packages after you
>  install the newer one, another 2x there.
>  
>  So that is 2.5x2x2 ignoring the hard disk speed, that is about 10x
>  slower for the upgrade.
>  
>  From my experience most of the time is disk io and seeks, very little
>  of it is actaully cpu.    My machines will do an upgrade in about 60
>  minutes, and that is with all of them having SSD's, so I would expect
>  it to be much longer with a spinning disk, 14x does not sound that
>  unreasonable if you have a lot of packages, and a slow laptop HD.
>   
See two to 4 times as a reasonable amount, but 15 
times seems high.

Note: I do include installing all the packages on both 
systems.

With the clean install the initial install takes only about 
30 minutes. Then about another 30 minutes to install the 
missing packages.
Do an 

rpm --qf "%{NAME}\n" -qa | sort  | grep -v gpg-pubkey > 
installed_pkgs`date +%F`.txt

tp create a file that contains all the packages that I have 
installed as a full list. 
Then run dnf install `cat installed_pkgs file`
Shows that many are already installed, but then installs 
the missing ones. Usually, just takes about 30 minutes 
do download and install. 

My big concern with the time, is power outage. Since it 
takes so long, if there was an outage don't have a ups 
that would keep even a notebook up for 14 hours. 

Many years ago, was doing an upgrade and had an 
outage that went beyond UPS. Was unable to get 
process to restart, so ended up having to wipe drive and 
do a clean install and manually reinstall everything.

Started long ago with Unixware, and Redhat 9 was first 
Linux. 

Taught  Computer Science for 36+ years when I retired 
in 2017. Started with an IBM 1130 with 4K ram and 
punch cards in high school in mid 70's.  Thanks for info.

>  On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michael D. Setzer II via users
>  <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
>  > upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
>  >
>  > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
>  > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
>  > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
>  > number of other packages I use that are not installed by
>  > default.
>  >
>  > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
>  > system update. This system has some more packages
>  > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
>  > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
>  > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
>  > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
>  >
>  > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
>  > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
>  > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
>  > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
>  > be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
>  >
>  > Thanks and be Safe..
>  >
>  >
>  > +------------------------------------------------------------+
>  >  Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
>  > (Retired)
>  >  mailto:[e-mail]
>  >  mailto:[e-mail]
>  >  Guam - Where America's Day Begins
>  >  G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
>  >  http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
>  > +------------------------------------------------------------+
>  >
>  > http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
>  > Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
>  > Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58
>  > minutes
>  > (Total Hours: 287,489)
>  >
>  > BOINC@HOME CREDITS
>  >
>  > ROSETTA      68715567.359982 | ABC
>  > 16613838.513356
>  > SETI        110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN
>  > 147926043.499240
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  > List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail] 

+------------------------------------------------------------+
 Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor 
(Retired)     
 mailto:[e-mail]                            
 mailto:[e-mail]
 Guam - Where America's Day Begins                        
 G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer 
 http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
+------------------------------------------------------------+

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
Number of Seti Units Returned:  19,471
Processing time:  32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 
minutes
(Total Hours: 287,489)

BOINC@HOME CREDITS

ROSETTA      68715567.359982 | ABC          
16613838.513356
SETI        110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN    
147926043.499240

[Samuel Sieb]

On 5/28/20 1:43 PM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote:
>  On 28 May 2020 at 11:40, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
> >> Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> >> system update. This system has some more packages
> >> installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> >> clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> >> but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> >> 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
> >
> > Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's
> > being extra safe in how it writes the files?  A lot more scripts to run?
> >
>  Yes, would expect 2 or 3 times as long, but 15 seems
>  way to much. It is interesting that each of the updates
>  for packages both on upgrade and cleaning seems to be
>  from 1 second to 6 seconds. The process shows 10140
>  with 1/2 being the installs, and 1/2 being the cleanup
>  and then 10140 verifies. Seems it is doing something
>  every single time? 
Yes, although the verify steps are usually pretty quick.  Then there are 
also some scripts that run before and after each section.

> >> Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> >> while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> >> using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> >> others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> >> be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
> >
> > How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade?  Weren't you doing
> > the offline upgrade?  The process should be very IO bound, not CPU.
> > Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one.
>  After doing the dnf system-upgrade reboot It comes up
>  with a graphic screen that just shows it is doing upgrade
>  and to not shut down. Very little info.
>  Ctrl-ESC does show it doing the process, and shows
>  each package and the count as it goes with time of each
>  step.
>  Was able to do Ctrl-Alt-F? Think it was F6 that finally
>  gave a command line login. Was able to login as root,
>  and just ran top command. Noticed that CPU was
>  showing 100% other numbers all seemed low. Never
>  saw CPU change from 100%, and it only showed dnf
>  process as high activity. 
That's something very useful to find out.  I didn't think there were any 
consoles available during the upgrade process.
That CPU usage is a problem.  I really don't think it should be doing 
that.  I would suggest filing a bug.  If you do, please post the link 
here after.  I don't have any systems to upgrade at this point, but I'll 
check for that happening when I do.

P.S.
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.73.639) ??
Wow, I remember using that 25 years ago, back when I still used Windows.
It does add a large, annoying header chunk to your replies though.

[Ed Greshko]

On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
>  I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently 
>  upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
>
>  Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install 
>  from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole 
>  process. Including install of OS, and then install of a 
>  number of other packages I use that are not installed by 
>  default.
>
>  Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf 
>  system update. This system has some more packages 
>  installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the 
>  clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, 
>  but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over 
>  14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. 
>
>  Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked 
>  while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just 
>  using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if 
>  others just run it, and check when done, but seems to 
>  be a bigger difference in time than it should be. 
I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long.  I just upgraded an
F30 VM to F32.  It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install.  The VM's disks are
actually
hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW.

I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade".  The number of packages upgraded was 1656.
The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds.  The upgrade phase took a few ticks
over 25 minutes.

I would think that checking

dnf system-upgrade log

and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the excessive time may be
helpful.

Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU, with 2626
packages upgraded took 58 minutes.  That notebook does have an SSD.

-- 
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 5/28/20 7:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>  I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long.  I just
> upgraded an
>  F30 VM to F32.  It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install.  The VM's disks are
> actually
>  hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW.
>  
>  I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade".  The number of packages upgraded was
> 1656.
>  The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds.  The upgrade phase took a few ticks
>  over 25 minutes.
>  
>  Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU, with 2626
>  packages upgraded took 58 minutes.  That notebook does have an SSD. 
My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night and 
half the next day to upgrade to F32.  I hadn't seen upgrade times that 
long before.  Usually only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard 
drives.

[Ed Greshko]

On 2020-05-29 13:33, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>  My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night
> and half the next day to upgrade to F32.  I hadn't seen upgrade times that long
> before.  Usually only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard drives.  
I take it you decided it wasn't worth the additional time to try and determine why it
took so long?

-- 
The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.

[Samuel Sieb]

On 5/28/20 11:15 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>  On 2020-05-29 13:33, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night and half the
> next day to upgrade to F32.  I hadn't seen upgrade times that long before.  Usually
> only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard drives.
>  
>  I take it you decided it wasn't worth the additional time to try and determine why it
> took so long? 
It's his laptop, I don't really have access to it.  He's also been 
having some issues with it getting slow and I'm planning to get him an 
SSD for it.  So no, I didn't even think about trying to find out why 
until this thread came up.

[Michael D. Setzer II]

>  On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
> > I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
> > upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
> >
> > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
> > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
> > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
> > number of other packages I use that are not installed by
> > default.
> >
> > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> > system update. This system has some more packages
> > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
> >
> > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> > be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
>
>  I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long.  I just upgraded
>  an
>  F30 VM to F32.  It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install.  The VM's
>  disks are actually
>  hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW.
>
>  I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade".  The number of packages upgraded was
>  1656.
>  The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds.  The upgrade phase took a
>  few ticks
>  over 25 minutes.
>
>  I would think that checking
>
>  dnf system-upgrade log
>
>  and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the excessive
>  time may be
>  helpful.
>
>  Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU,
>  with 2626
>  packages upgraded took 58 minutes.  That notebook does have an SSD.
>
>  --
>  The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. 
Pulled the data from the boot.log
31814 lines
Total Time 14:59.59.05
Longest single change was 1156.203674 seconds
[ 1740.207952] dnf[807]:   Running scriptlet:
filesystem-3.12-2.fc31.x86_64                          1/1
Average of transactions 1.6918392547953
Only 11 transactions took 60 seconds or longer

Had to clean out lines that where mixed in with the upgrade of starting
and stopping things during process.
Extracted the time data, and then compared the times of each process to
calculate the difference.

CPU is Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU 2020M @ 2.40GHz with just 2 cores.
Has 12G of Ram.

If you want, I could send you the libreoffice calc file. Perhaps you would
see something that I've missed.

>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>

[Roger Heflin]

You might run a smartctl --all /dev/<disk> and see if the disk is
reporting issues with sectors.

A few slow but still readable sectors would push up the time.

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:25 AM Michael D. Setzer II via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>
> > On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
> >> I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
> >> upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
> >>
> >> Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
> >> from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
> >> process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
> >> number of other packages I use that are not installed by
> >> default.
> >>
> >> Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> >> system update. This system has some more packages
> >> installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> >> clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> >> but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> >> 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
> >>
> >> Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> >> while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> >> using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> >> others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> >> be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
> >
> > I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long.  I just upgraded
> > an
> > F30 VM to F32.  It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install.  The VM's
> > disks are actually
> > hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW.
> >
> > I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade".  The number of packages upgraded
was
> > 1656.
> > The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds.  The upgrade phase took a
> > few ticks
> > over 25 minutes.
> >
> > I would think that checking
> >
> > dnf system-upgrade log
> >
> > and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the excessive
> > time may be
> > helpful.
> >
> > Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU,
> > with 2626
> > packages upgraded took 58 minutes.  That notebook does have an SSD.
> >
> > --
> > The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
>
> Pulled the data from the boot.log
> 31814 lines
> Total Time 14:59.59.05
> Longest single change was 1156.203674 seconds
> [ 1740.207952] dnf[807]:   Running scriptlet:
> filesystem-3.12-2.fc31.x86_64                          1/1
> Average of transactions 1.6918392547953
> Only 11 transactions took 60 seconds or longer
>
> Had to clean out lines that where mixed in with the upgrade of starting
> and stopping things during process.
> Extracted the time data, and then compared the times of each process to
> calculate the difference.
>
> CPU is Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU 2020M @ 2.40GHz with just 2 cores.
> Has 12G of Ram.
>
> If you want, I could send you the libreoffice calc file. Perhaps you would
> see something that I've missed.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Michael D. Setzer II]

>  You might run a smartctl --all /dev/<disk> and see if the disk
> is
>  reporting issues with sectors.
>
>  A few slow but still readable sectors would push up the time.
>  
hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   8624 MB in  1.99 seconds = 4323.10 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 398 MB in  3.01 seconds = 132.12 MB/sec

did short smartctl test see no errors.

smartctl 7.1 2019-12-30 r5022 [x86_64-linux-5.6.13-200.fc31.x86_64] (local
build)
Copyright (C) 2002-19, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Seagate Mobile HDD
Device Model:     ST1000LM035-1RK172
Serial Number:    ZDEBD551
LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 0b21db1f2
Firmware Version: SDM2
User Capacity:    1,000,204,886,016 bytes [1.00 TB]
Sector Sizes:     512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical
Rotation Rate:    5400 rpm
Form Factor:      2.5 inches
Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is:   ACS-3 T13/2161-D revision 3b
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.1, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 3.0 Gb/s)
Local Time is:    Fri May 29 23:43:17 2020 ChST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status:  (0x00)	Offline data collection activity
					was never started.
					Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled.
Self-test execution status:      (   0)	The previous self-test routine
completed
					without error or no self-test has ever
					been run.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection: 		(    0) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities: 			 (0x71) SMART execute Offline immediate.
					No Auto Offline data collection support.
					Suspend Offline collection upon new
					command.
					No Offline surface scan supported.
					Self-test supported.
					Conveyance Self-test supported.
					Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities:            (0x0003)	Saves SMART data before entering
					power-saving mode.
					Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability:        (0x01)	Error logging supported.
					General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time: 	 (   1) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time: 	 ( 162) minutes.
Conveyance self-test routine
recommended polling time: 	 (   2) minutes.
SCT capabilities: 	       (0x3035)	SCT Status supported.
					SCT Feature Control supported.
					SCT Data Table supported.

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED 
WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   082   064   006    Pre-fail  Always  
    -       148372794
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   099   099   000    Pre-fail  Always  
    -       0
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age   Always  
    -       37
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   036    Pre-fail  Always  
    -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   082   060   045    Pre-fail  Always  
    -       168378750
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   089   089   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       9738 (126 157 0)
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail  Always  
    -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age   Always  
    -       36
184 End-to-End_Error        0x0032   100   100   099    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
188 Command_Timeout         0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
189 High_Fly_Writes         0x003a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022   054   046   040    Old_age   Always  
    -       46 (Min/Max 33/52)
191 G-Sense_Error_Rate      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       252
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       4
193 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0032   001   001   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       201701
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   046   054   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       46 (0 25 0 0 0)
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age   Offline 
    -       0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0
240 Head_Flying_Hours       0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline 
    -       9457 (101 150 0)
241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline 
    -       10494634824
242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline 
    -       2837485253
254 Free_Fall_Sensor        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always  
    -       0

SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining 
LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      9738      
  -
# 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      1509      
  -

SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
 SPAN  MIN_LBA  MAX_LBA  CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
    1        0        0  Not_testing
    2        0        0  Not_testing
    3        0        0  Not_testing
    4        0        0  Not_testing
    5        0        0  Not_testing
Selective self-test flags (0x0):
  After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.



>  On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:25 AM Michael D. Setzer II via users
>  <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> > > On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote:
> > >> I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
> > >> upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
> > >>
> > >> Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
> > >> from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
> > >> process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
> > >> number of other packages I use that are not installed by
> > >> default.
> > >>
> > >> Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> > >> system update. This system has some more packages
> > >> installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> > >> clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> > >> but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> > >> 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
> > >>
> > >> Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> > >> while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> > >> using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> > >> others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> > >> be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
> > >
> > > I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long.  I just
> > upgraded
> > > an
> > > F30 VM to F32.  It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install.  The
> > VM's
> > > disks are actually
> > > hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW.
> > >
> > > I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade".  The number of packages
> > upgraded was
> > > 1656.
> > > The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds.  The upgrade phase
> > took a
> > > few ticks
> > > over 25 minutes.
> > >
> > > I would think that checking
> > >
> > > dnf system-upgrade log
> > >
> > > and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the
> > excessive
> > > time may be
> > > helpful.
> > >
> > > Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo
> > CPU,
> > > with 2626
> > > packages upgraded took 58 minutes.  That notebook does have an SSD.
> > >
> > > --
> > > The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions.
> >
> > Pulled the data from the boot.log
> > 31814 lines
> > Total Time 14:59.59.05
> > Longest single change was 1156.203674 seconds
> > [ 1740.207952] dnf[807]:   Running scriptlet:
> > filesystem-3.12-2.fc31.x86_64                          1/1
> > Average of transactions 1.6918392547953
> > Only 11 transactions took 60 seconds or longer
> >
> > Had to clean out lines that where mixed in with the upgrade of starting
> > and stopping things during process.
> > Extracted the time data, and then compared the times of each process to
> > calculate the difference.
> >
> > CPU is Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU 2020M @ 2.40GHz with just 2 cores.
> > Has 12G of Ram.
> >
> > If you want, I could send you the libreoffice calc file. Perhaps you
> > would
> > see something that I've missed.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  _______________________________________________
>  users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>