From owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 31 14:45:35 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hubs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3D0106564A for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (kazi.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.8.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F988FC1A for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz) (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2VEY86U050494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from cejkar@localhost) by kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (8.14.2/8.13.1/Submit) id m2VEY7v6050493; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:34:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz) X-Authentication-Warning: kazi.fit.vutbr.cz: cejkar set sender to cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz using -f Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:34:07 +0200 From: Rudolf Cejka To: Peter Losher , Garance A Drosihn , hubs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080331143407.GA42464@fit.vutbr.cz> References: <47F08C13.20307@isc.org> <20080331110642.GC24282@netj.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080331110642.GC24282@netj.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.62 on 147.229.8.12 Cc: Subject: Re: IPv6 and cvsup servers X-BeenThere: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "FreeBSD Distributions Hubs: mail sup ftp" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:45:36 -0000 Jaeho Shin wrote (2008/03/31): > If csup is popular and reliable enough, shouldn't we migrate our > infrastructure upon it? Since it's written in C, csup is much more If I remember correctly, server part is not sufficiently tested or rewritten yet. > I'm not confident enough, but rsync > could be another viable solution. (Please forgive my short knowledge if > similar effort is already going on. I'm not actively using FreeBSD any > more these days.) Rsync is not as good as would be expected: It needs much more memory for regular updates on server side (for example, one process needs up to 150 MB per one process!) and it is more unstable. There were time periods, where it was almost impossible to run rsync on full FreeBSD tree without an internal rsync i/o error. I hope, that it is solved now, but memory is still the problem (having no time to test 3.0.0 yet). > I just can't understand why the leading operating system for networking > is still relying its update system on such a handicap'ed tool. I can't understand so many other things, especially... ;o) -- Rudolf Cejka http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~cejkar Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Information Technology Bozetechova 2, 612 66 Brno, Czech Republic