Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:17:00 +0200 From: Marton Kenyeres <mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating Message-ID: <200410271517.00682.mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu> In-Reply-To: <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> writes: > > CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. > > if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right. Does using CVSup over an asymmetric link qualify as `not using it right`? [From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ] "The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the usable bandwidth." It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example, from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.) I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over symmetric and asymmetric lines. Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports notifies me that something on my watchlist has changed). > > I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no > need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it. I agree with that. > > DES m.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410271517.00682.mkenyeres>