Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:06:54 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Has the port collection become to large to handle. Message-ID: <20060516080654.4912e3ce.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: <17513.19302.117093.885684@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGGEBNHHAA.fbsd@a1poweruser.com> <20060515203832.W4690@tripel.monochrome.org> <17513.19302.117093.885684@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 May 2006 23:47:50 -0400 Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote: > > Chris Hill writes: > > > IMHO, your gripes are misdirected - complain to your ISP about > > the speed and reliability of your service. This should NOT take > > two hours. It could also be a matter of using the wrong server > > for your time and place. > > A data point: > I just pulled a fresh copy of the tree into virgin space. > Time (as reported by cvsup) : 46m42s > Size (as reported by du) : 301.2 mbytes > The mirror is 6 hops out, and located at M.I.T.. (Almost next > door.) > My connection is 7 megabit cable. Pulling down an entire tree into a virgin directory is not efficient use of cvsup. Not even a little. While it _can_ be done (as you've demonstrated) if you're looking for performance, pull down a tarball, unpack it, then run cvsup to update it, and I bet it will be considerably faster. -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060516080654.4912e3ce.wmoran>