Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:03:29 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cperciva@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F65B01.4090303@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > 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 > That is a very alid developer opinion. Luckily, our users outnumber our developers my many orders of magnitude. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F65B01.4090303>