From owner-freebsd-hubs Sat Feb 20 12:33:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFCF11981 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:33:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13]) by wall.polstra.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA01574; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:33:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) From: John Polstra Received: (from jdp@localhost) by vashon.polstra.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) id MAA17614; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:33:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:33:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199902202033.MAA17614@vashon.polstra.com> To: lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca Subject: Re: preferred www.freebsd.org mirror method In-Reply-To: Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Cc: hubs@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article , Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > I'm using compressed rsync, which is great. > > > > Thinks: I should set up cvsup to another area on the disk, and then > > compare the two methods, to work out which gives the least amount > > of network traffic for a mirror. > > I'm curious about this, too. Me too. :-) CVSup uses the rsync algorithm to update things like www trees. But of course, it's my implementation instead of Tridgell & Mackerras's. There are several parameters that can affect its performance, and though I tried to set them intelligently, I don't have many measurements at this point. So if you get any results, I'd be very interested in hearing about them. Besides network I/O, I'd also like to find out how they compare speed-wise. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." -- H. L. Mencken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message