From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jan 24 11: 3:52 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 68D0E15A82 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:03:32 -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 MAA02015; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:03:24 -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 MAA05087; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:03:11 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200001241903.MAA05087@harmony.village.org> To: Chuck Robey Subject: Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly Cc: Brad Knowles , current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:55:16 EST." References: Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:03:11 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Chuck Robey writes: : That's the precise reason I suggested a system that used no probing, had : feedback, and forced shared load in spite of user misconfiguration. Got : shouted down. One reason I think that you've been shouted down (and me too, since I had similar ideas) is that people in the past have had problems with different cvsup servers being at different points in time and have been screwed to som eextent or another by this time skew. There is a large resistance to automatically switching cvsup servers. It is my perception that the cvsup servers are much better now than they were even 6 months ago (well, cvsup{1,2} do seem to be much more heavily used than 6,7,8). Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message