Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:24:45 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com>, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a SITE MD5 command to ftpd Message-ID: <200103152124.f2FLOj046985@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010314084651.A23104@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200103142342.QAA09233@usr08.primenet.com> <20010314161555.A4984@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20010314185026.C7683@dragon.nuxi.com> <200103150256.f2F2u1b37896@earth.backplane.com> <p0501040ab6d5f1cb0b56@[128.113.24.47]> <200103150606.f2F66Vj38988@earth.backplane.com> <3AB0F921.3E8FC55C@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> :> I'm just trying to think of the situations where a user would do :> this on a regular basis, and I simply can't imagine that : :Fetching ports distfiles or packages. : :Wes Peters Softweyr LLC :wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ Ports and distfiles are for the most part version based, as part of the filename. This handles 99.99% of the download checking requirement. It isn't perfect, but an MD5 check isn't going to magically solve the problem either. Frankly I do not see how a remote MD5 check would even come close to reducing the bandwidth of an ftp server in any significant way considering all the (correct) downloads going on anyway. An MD5 is simply not going to save enough bandwidth for it to be worth adding. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103152124.f2FLOj046985>