From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 20 6:29:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A1537B479 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 06:29:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.transsys.com (8.11.1/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAKERL757456; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:27:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Message-Id: <200011201427.eAKERL757456@whizzo.transsys.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Francisco Reyes" Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" X-Image-URL: http://www.transsys.com/louie/images/louie-mail.jpg From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: New US CVSup mirrors References: <200011201123.GAA95856@sanson.reyes.somos.net> In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2000 06:27:16 EST." <200011201123.GAA95856@sanson.reyes.somos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:27:21 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The only time that you tend to see really busy servers is after a major "release" event when every file is tagged, or some other infrequent event. It's unlikely that other servers are going to be significantly less loaded than the one you decided to use in the first place. This is an interesting academic discussion, but given how well the system of CVSUP mirrors work, why fix something that's not broken? You really don't want to have more complexity in these large distributed systems than is necessary. So, pick a "close" mirror (and note that in the US, 3 new ones were just added that are likely very underutilized) and move on to the next problem. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message