Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:07:56 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cperciva@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> References: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org>
Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org>
: > Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > : very little reason for anyone to be running
: > : a portsnap mirror unless it's a public mirror,
: >
: > Our experience with cvsup would suggest otherwise. Many places with
: > large numbers or even small numbers of machines run cvsup mirrors that
: > are private. I expect that universities will want to run mirrors that
: > they might not want non-students accessing (eg, internal bandwidth is
: > free, external is expensive).
:
: Portsnap != CVSup. In particular, an HTTP proxy which is used by five
: hundred users running portsnap will use less bandwidth than a portsnap
: mirror. The "right" solution for nearly all organizations is a caching
: HTTP proxy.
I'm not worried about bandwidth usage so much as I am about
availability. The primary reason I cvsup the CVS tree is so that it
is always available to me locally and I don't have to depend on my ISP
having my link up. Proxie http doesn't help with that at all.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050807.120756.130975791.imp>