From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 7 18:27:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F196F16A464; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:27:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0285443EF6; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:07:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j77I6r81082511; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:06:53 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:07:56 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com> To: cperciva@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> References: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:06:53 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:27:30 -0000 In message: <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> Colin Percival writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> : > Colin Percival 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