Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:43:28 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> To: Shaun Amott <shaun@inerd.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portscout - new distfile scanner Message-ID: <20060404114328.GW958@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20060404095450.GB751@picobyte.net> References: <20060403190532.GA966@picobyte.net> <20060404063400.GC953@k7.mavetju> <20060404095450.GB751@picobyte.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:54:51AM +0100, Shaun Amott wrote: > 2 days? Wow, that's crazy. :) Maybe yes, maybe no. If you check all n mastersites for all possible version strings (1.2.3 -> 1.2.4, 1.3.0, 2.0.0), you end up with 3n TCP connections per distfile. HTTP requests are cheap, but FTP sessions are expensive. Then if you have a choked up connection, this all might take a while. > information you had put up. One of my goals was to make portscout as > low-maintenance as possible, so I tried to avoid having lists of > ports/hosts, etc. But, it seems like this is inevitable, so I might make > use of your data files at some point. Low-maintenance and getting-as-accurate as possible are not countering each other. It's more usefull to get proper results for ports which want the minor-version to be even, than to send out the wrong alerts to people about "upgrades" being available. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060404114328.GW958>