From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 13:16:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B7316A4CE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:16:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from konvergencia.hu (konvergencia.hu [195.228.254.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F8243D49 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:16:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu) Received: from [127.0.0.25] (helo=localhost) by konvergencia.hu with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1CMniq-00024m-00 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:20:16 +0000 Received: from konvergencia.hu ([127.0.0.25]) by localhost (kavegep.konvergencia.hu [127.0.0.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07701-03 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 154.120-182-adsl-pool.axelero.hu ([81.182.120.154] helo=[10.0.0.161]) by konvergencia.hu with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.10) id 1CMnip-00024h-00 for freebsd-security@freebsd.org; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:20:15 +0000 From: Marton Kenyeres Organization: KVG Konvergencia Kft. To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:17:00 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410271517.00682.mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at konvergencia.hu Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:16:54 -0000 On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Colin Percival 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=20 right`? [From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ] "The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the=20 server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the=20 usable bandwidth." It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is=20 more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but=20 makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example,=20 from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the=20 roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.) I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating=20 methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over=20 symmetric and asymmetric lines. Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices=20 might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports=20 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.