Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 01:26:11 -0800 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule for 2006 ) Message-ID: <20060105092611.GI1358@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <20051223085657.GF63497@over-yonder.net> References: <200512231136.12471.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <200512230851.jBN8pFVv060458@hugo10.ka.punkt.de> <20051223085657.GF63497@over-yonder.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Patrick M. Hausen, and lo! it spake thus:
> > Any suggestions for an alternative to NFS if your 'client' servers
> > are located "all over the world" and you want to installworld across
> > the Internet? I was planning to use NFS/TCP secured by IPSec
> > transport mode, but anything less complicated would be greatly
> > appreciated ;-)
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:56:57AM -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> This is one of the situations where r{dist,sync}'ing out the binaries
> makes more sense than NFS mounting and running installworld (which
> would be awful awful slow, above and beyond security and convenience
> issues).
This works fine for small patches (ie cvs patch last year). How do you
handle configuration changes/comparisons? (ie mergemaster stuff?)
--
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060105092611.GI1358>