From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 21 20:32:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F7637B71B for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:32:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA01360; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:32:02 +1100 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:31:40 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Stephen McKay Cc: Ulf Zimmermann , current@FreeBSD.ORG, "Michael C . Wu" , Vladimir Kushnir Subject: Re: Whatever happened to CTM? In-Reply-To: <200103211144.f2LBi1911828@dungeon.home> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Stephen McKay wrote: > On Tuesday, 20th March 2001, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > > >On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 04:53:33PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >> On 20-Mar-01 Michael C . Wu wrote: > >> > For all connections greater than 9600baud modems, we recommend > >> > using CVSup to get src-all and ports-all updated. At the worst case, > >> > be able to CVSup a ports-all collection within an hour, with heavy > >> > packet loss and low bandwidth. > >> > > >> > i.e. CTM sucks, don't use it. :) > > On the contrary, I prefer CTM over CVSup, even on a fast connection (which > I don't currently have). On a slow or intermittent connection, CTM beats > CVSup by a large margin. I'm not sure about that. CTM may be faster, but it works less automatically, especially when it breaks, and it breaks often, at both the server and client levels (mainly downtime problems for the server and disk-full problems for the client. I used to use it until the server broke one time too many last year. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message