From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 10 21:20:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A4F16A41F for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:20:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CE143D48 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:20:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 8so485536nzo for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iB6Qq+FnjIhPSUNygSLhlajF9CoJgblx1qugGZZH95pkbmWxLSorEPfcg4Rgn5E2fvQ4SlclpmHnsvar7IZhjkwh2A+QfzcGfkhcv7ZAjgxZ5f14BFrwG85zyF0dkQWP++oATwo1znWjLu2IDveKDLXd6ryfaJONvSIUfsAPUYo= Received: by 10.36.222.1 with SMTP id u1mr850461nzg; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.37.20.33 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:20:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:20:29 +0300 From: "Andrew P." To: Colin Percival In-Reply-To: <4373AC67.4010403@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> <43725078.6000303@freebsd.org> <4373AC67.4010403@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:20:31 -0000 On 11/10/05, Colin Percival wrote: > Andrew P. wrote: > > There are a couple more points against portsnap: > > - it lags behind by a few hours. > > This is true (well, 1-2 hours). However, the reason for this > is that portsnap builds ports INDEX files, and since portsnap > is usually more up-to-date than the INDEX files fetched by > "make fetchindex", the lag time is probably less of a problem > than one might imagine at first. > > That said, the build times should be improving somewhat as I > move portsnap builds to some new hardware in the near future. > > > - setting up a mirror is still undocumented > > I'm working on it; but for most users, a caching HTTP proxy > will be far better than an actual portsnap mirror. > > Colin Percival > satbsd# date Fri Nov 11 00:11:04 MSK 2005 satbsd# portsnap fetch Fetching snapshot tag... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Thu Nov 10 02:28:12 MSK 2005 to Thu Nov 10 21:14:57 MSK 2005. Fetching 4 metadata patches... done. ... That's 3 hours, and I often see more. But that doesn't really matter (as in "really really"). Portsnap still would have saved many lives even if it lagged by a week, and I think that some humble hardware donation just might solve the problem by cutting down even those 3 hours.