From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 19 09:32:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F0716A401 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:32:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from mx.nitro.dk (zarniwoop.nitro.dk [83.92.207.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297E43D5D for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:31:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from zaphod.nitro.dk (unknown [192.168.3.18]) by mx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02562D4892 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zaphod.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 3000) id C5A691141F; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:31:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:31:54 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060419093153.GA1095@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <3aaaa3a0604171743y33af6355udf750eca65605920@mail.gmail.com> <44456BC2.1050102@freebsd.org> <3aaaa3a0604181728p79df162bk900d488c746d8069@mail.gmail.com> <20060419075031.GW46464@e-Gitt.NET> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J/dobhs11T7y2rNN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060419075031.GW46464@e-Gitt.NET> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Subject: Re: portsnap mirror servers X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:32:07 -0000 --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2006.04.19 09:50:31 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:28:56AM +0100, Chris wrote: > > On 18/04/06, Colin Percival wrote: > > > Why do you think there should be an .eu mirror? > >=20 > > Whilst portsnap is fast, it is a noticeable speed difference when > > using from eu servers, I also think its a good idea for redundancy. >=20 > I did not yet check in the sources or with tcpdump, but from the=20 > htrougput I see, I'd guess, there's a lot of sequential two-way=20 > communication involved. That kind of traffic is massively influenced by= =20 Hey, Recent portsnap versions (since the ones shipped in 6.0 AFAIR) uses HTTP pipelining (when possible) which means that the latency really doesn't matter since many requests are sent at once without waiting for the reply. I should mention that when pipelining is enabled I don't really see a big difference when using portsnap from Europe compared to systems in the US. More often the local disk limits the speed of portsnap updates for me rather than bandwith/latency. As Colin has said before, there will be more mirrors later, but there really just isn't a need for more right now. --=20 Simon L. Nielsen --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFERgOJh9pcDSc1mlERAucKAKCOlmN3VkXgAPW2A/+X4sph/nyVHACeIQ4e 14AATr5muyqpcrRG+yd5RWw= =jsgP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--