Closed
Bug 764587
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
When downloading a complete mar after the partial fails it shouldn't be throttled.
Categories
(Toolkit :: Application Update, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla16
People
(Reporter: robert.strong.bugs, Assigned: ehsan.akhgari)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file)
3.25 KB,
patch
|
robert.strong.bugs
:
review+
akeybl
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Spinoff of bug 764377. Specifically see bug 764377 comment #6 through bug 764377 comment #11
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
tracking-firefox15:
--- → ?
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
Ehsan, it *might* make sense to download unthrottled when it fails in this case but I haven't had a chance to think it through http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/nsUpdateService.js#1027
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•12 years ago
|
||
Hmm, isn't this just a dupe of bug 764377?
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #1) > Ehsan, it *might* make sense to download unthrottled when it fails in this > case but I haven't had a chance to think it through > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/ > nsUpdateService.js#1027 Hmm, if we have concerns about our mirror network capacity, I'd guess that the same concerns apply here too, right? Cause most people want to download and use the partials, which are way smaller than complete mars.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•12 years ago
|
||
No, what he is asking for is that background downloads aren't throttled in the way they have always been. See bug 764377 comment #26, specifically, "Even in the case where the UI is not displayed it makes no sense to make a 30 second download take almost an hour and a half..."
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ehsan Akhgari [:ehsan] from comment #3) > (In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #1) > > Ehsan, it *might* make sense to download unthrottled when it fails in this > > case but I haven't had a chance to think it through > > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/ > > nsUpdateService.js#1027 > > Hmm, if we have concerns about our mirror network capacity, I'd guess that > the same concerns apply here too, right? Cause most people want to download > and use the partials, which are way smaller than complete mars. Only if it is a common case. For example, when we are unable to apply a mar we download unthrottled when we start back up. So yes, it is a concern if this is common and it is not if it is not common.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #5) > (In reply to Ehsan Akhgari [:ehsan] from comment #3) > > (In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #1) > > > Ehsan, it *might* make sense to download unthrottled when it fails in this > > > case but I haven't had a chance to think it through > > > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/ > > > nsUpdateService.js#1027 > > > > Hmm, if we have concerns about our mirror network capacity, I'd guess that > > the same concerns apply here too, right? Cause most people want to download > > and use the partials, which are way smaller than complete mars. > Only if it is a common case. For example, when we are unable to apply a mar > we download unthrottled when we start back up. So yes, it is a concern if > this is common and it is not if it is not common. To the best of my knowledge, it should not be common. But I don't have hard evidence to support this claim. :-)
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
The reason this is common is probably because of bug 764269.
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
Understood and both regressions need to be fixed.
Comment 10•12 years ago
|
||
I really wish you people would follow these bugs without me having to point things out to you particularly since you seem to be adverse to accepting my input on things.
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•12 years ago
|
||
Can you please stop with these type of comments. I and others follow the app update component so yes, I am following this and the other bugs. Your input has been and is accepted... I gave you a path forward by filing a mirror network bug to get your input regarding the mirror network into the hands of the people that can do something with it but you seem dead set on trying to get those that can't do anything with it directly to use it. After I have some breathing room I'll even file the bug if you don't but as far as this bug is concerned we already understand what is going on as I explained to you several times in bug 764377 so no more input is needed.
Comment 12•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #11) > Can you please stop with these type of comments. I and others follow the app > update component so yes, I am following this and the other bugs. Your input > has been and is accepted... I gave you a path forward by filing a mirror > network bug to get your input regarding the mirror network into the hands of > the people that can do something with it but you seem dead set on trying to > get those that can't do anything with it directly to use it. After I have > some breathing room I'll even file the bug if you don't but as far as this > bug is concerned we already understand what is going on as I explained to > you several times in bug 764377 so no more input is needed. But my issue is that I don't think that this is a mirror network issue. Not sure why you don't get this. I guess you really don't pay any attention to what I really say in my comments.
Reporter | ||
Comment 13•12 years ago
|
||
It is a mirror network issue in that the throttling was implemented to prevent the mirror network from being overloaded. Any changes to the client side throttling would first need to be evaluated and agreed to by the people that manage the mirror networks.
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•12 years ago
|
||
And PLEASE, take your comments back to bug 764377. This bug is specifically about the regression caused by bgupdates.
Comment 15•12 years ago
|
||
This is a bug I filed. It is about what I say it is about and not what you say it is about.
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•12 years ago
|
||
No, I filed this bug to specifically be about the regression for bgupdates. You filed bug 764377.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Robert Strong [:rstrong] (do not email) from comment #1) > Ehsan, it *might* make sense to download unthrottled when it fails in this > case but I haven't had a chance to think it through > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/mozapps/update/ > nsUpdateService.js#1027 After more thought, I think this makes sense. Patch forthcoming.
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•12 years ago
|
||
Attachment #632992 -
Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla)
Reporter | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Attachment #632992 -
Flags: review?(robert.bugzilla) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•12 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/15aaf2a0cb1d
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla16
Comment 20•12 years ago
|
||
Could you summarise the change this makes ? What scenarios will be download the complete at full speed where we would have done background before ?
Reporter | ||
Comment 21•12 years ago
|
||
Previously, if the partial download failed or the mar didn't pass any of the checks it would download the complete. This would be done in the UI and it would be without throttling. This makes it so it will do the same for the background updates case.
Reporter | ||
Comment 22•12 years ago
|
||
background staging of the update that is
Comment 23•12 years ago
|
||
Thanks Robert.
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
status-firefox15:
--- → affected
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 632992 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): bug 759065 User impact if declined: See comment 0 Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): Both locally and has baked for a few days on m-c Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): Minimal String or UUID changes made by this patch: none
Attachment #632992 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 25•12 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 632992 [details] [diff] [review] Patch (v1) [Triage Comment] Let's land on Aurora 15 in support of re-enabling the feature.
Attachment #632992 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora? → approval-mozilla-aurora+
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•12 years ago
|
||
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/edb44dbbbd6e
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•