From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 7 19:03:40 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 57F9F16A41F; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:03:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC03D43D46; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 19:03:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j77JFW4N007798; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:15:32 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <42F65B01.4090303@samsco.org> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:03:29 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050615 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050807.120756.130975791.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: cperciva@freebsd.org, 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 19:03:40 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > 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 > That is a very alid developer opinion. Luckily, our users outnumber our developers my many orders of magnitude. Scott