Hi @aleksander-szczepanek_3253 ,
If you navigate to Admin > Advanced Settings and check "Use Connector Publish Date", then this will behave as you expect. Note that you will need to delete already-cached packages.
This will be default behavior in ProGet 2026+
Cheers,
Alana
Hi @parthu-reddy ,
Thanks for the additional information. Thinking about it further, I suspect this was a temporary network outage. It could have been DNS related, or who knows what.
As for your configuration...
5000 is definitely too high; set this towards 100-500 max. If you're working on a load-balanced cluster, this should be done at the load balancer instead.
I was incorrect about api.nuget.org, that is also used by the V3 API. I thought it was only V2. So please disregard.
It's unlikely metadata caching will help, but you could try it. That's a relatively short-lived cache meant for traffic bursts, and it's not really going to help with a network outage.
-- Dean
Hi @parthu-reddy,
Thanks for the detailed investigation notes. From what you've described, the behavior doesn't appear to be related to SQL Server locking. It's most certainly related to blocking/waiting on the 200+ outgoing connections to receive a response from api.nuget.org.
If api.nuget.org is running slow, then ProGet will run slow. There's really no way around this when you use connectors, as ProGet is effectively forwarding client requests.
Most likely, someone or some build server is making legacy/V2 NuGet API requests (they look like ODATA/SQL queries on the url), and those are being forwarded. The V3 requests are just JSON files.
-- Dean
Hi @0xFFFFFFFF,
Thanks for the detailed write-up and explanation.
It looks trivial to add size and upload-time. Adding versions is probably simple, assuming it's just an array of distinct version numbers (we already have all the "packages" in context).
It's probably fine, but just to be safe we will do this in ProGet 2026, given some of the subtle behavioral changes you mentioned ("tools like uv to make use of heuristics to speed up downloads"). For someone with an overloaded server, that might "put it over the edge".
ProGet 2026 may be ready by the end of the month, so it's not so far away.
-- Dean
Hi @Nils-Nilsson ,
Thanks for the bug report; it seems to issue is on the "view" page, and it's mistakenly editing the wrong data.
PG-3258 will fix this in the next maintenance release (April 17), but a prerelease is now available (inedo/proget:25.0.26-ci.6) if you'd like to try it.
-- Dean
@rcpa0 thanks for letting us know; we'll try to fix this next time we make some changes to pgutil it should only print "Version is not a valid semantic version." or something
Hi @geraldizo_0690 , unfortunately we didn't get a chance to review this for the last maintenance release, but it'll be in the next one (April 17) via PG-3257. It's also available via prerelease if you'd like (inedo/proget:25.0.26-ci.5)
-- Dean
Hi @no-doubt,
We are software engineers that provide technical support to technical end users. We cannot help non-technical users who provide no technical information. Moreover, I'm not willing to work with users who call our products "a real pain" and share counter-productive "facts" about how easy competitive products are. You should know better.
I'm going to lock this thread, but I'll give you another chance though.
If you'd like to continue your evaluation and receive technical support, please spend a few moments reviewing other forum posts to see how users communicate with us. If you feel comfortable doing that, then post again. If not, then it sounds like you've got two products to choose from.
Sincerly,
Alex
Hi @geraldizo_0690 ,
Thanks! That's pretty much where we left it, an "interesting feature" with no real demand. I'm glad you "get it" though and see some value here :)
This allows users to check whether the packages they use have already been updated with the latest security updates.
So to clarify, your envisioned usecase is system/Debian packages? What would you do on the Otter side? Orchestrate updates of those packages?
Cheers,
Alex
PS -- other issue is the list to address, easy fix just haven't gotten to it yet w/ PG2026 stuff
Hi @george-bowen_9415 ,
This was brought up at a internal review meeting, but I didn't want to have this added because I don't want to start adding configuration options to the AD v5 Directory - the goal is to "just work" for 95% of the use cases, and your configuration (37K users, 101 direct groups, 217 indirect groups) definitely falls within the 5%
So, our plan is to update the documentation on how to configure LDAP / OpenLDAP directory with AD. That's technically more work than adding a checkbox.... but this aligns with how most other products integrate with LADP/AD.
We plan to document this in the coming weeks, but in the meantime you could probably figure it out without the tutorial.
Cheers,
Alex
