Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:44:04 -0800 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup problem Message-ID: <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> In-Reply-To: <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> References: <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 10:24 am, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 10:59, Brian E. Conklin wrote: > > Parsing supfile "/etc/ports-supfile" > > Connecting to cvsup10.us.freebsd.org > > Why is everyone trying to using cvsup10 all of a sudden? I don't > think I've ever made it past 5. There is a port called fastest_cvsup. If you run it, it is supposed to tell you which site will give you the best response. I think the rational is that a mirror close to you will have the least impact. I have also found that the shortest mirror update is not always provided by the best response. Fastest_cvsup will also enumerate which mirrors are not responding. This can be from a failure or they are too busy. If you run a cron job, you don't like to see a lot of failures because they are too busy. If you have a mirror, you can see how they are impacted by a session, which is why I am against cvsuping src, ports, and doc at the same frequency. If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do it. Kent -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA http://users.owt.com/kstewart/index.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511091044.04253.kstewart>