From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 24 10:20:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E92C14EBE for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:20:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01853; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:20:37 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA04735; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:20:24 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200001241820.LAA04735@harmony.village.org> To: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 14:15:21 +0100." References: <20000121180914.C44132@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000121173923.A44132@dragon.nuxi.com> <200001220500.WAA17674@harmony.village.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:20:24 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Brad Knowles writes: : Doesn't work. There might be a very low latency but : low-bandwidth connection between you and one of the servers, when you : (and everyone else) would be better off if you instead connected to a : server that shows slightly higher latency but has significantly more : bandwidth (or less packet loss, or a less loaded server on the other : end, etc...). Agreed. The making lots of connections was a bad idea. However, I've rarely seen low latency and low bandwidth go together. I've also problems connecting accross high loss links more often. Sure, it is a statistical argument. I still think that the n connections wouldn't be that expensive. The cost, iirc, of a connection that drops is very low. I can certainly see enough problems with it to encourage jdp to not implement it, despite being the person that proposed it... : IMO, there are just too many factors to be considered to apply : any one simplistic solution. You need more intelligence on both : ends.... Agreed. But in the abasense of intellegence at one end is causing problems at the other end. FWIW, I've found that *MUCH* better response times since I started using cvsup{6,7,8} on a regular basis than I was getting from cvsup{1,2,3}. I'm also seeing much faster response times from 6,7,8 than cvsup-master (yes, I know I'm not supposed to use that, but there are rare times I need to snag the latest change right away...). I've not tried cvsup 4,5 in a while, but did have trouble connecting to 5 while polishing my script. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message