Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:37:17 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Marton Kenyeres <mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating Message-ID: <417FB29D.8030004@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <200410271517.00682.mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu> References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no> <200410271517.00682.mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marton Kenyeres wrote: [..snip..] > 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 find the longer I wait, the more time cvsup takes. It isn't that it's slow, it's just that portsnap seems faster in this case. Has anyone thought about using bittorrent to pass the portsnap binary around? That would remove the 'mirror' issue possibly. I cvsup in swarms - a couple times daily for about 2-3 days, then when my ports are all happy, I don't do it for a couple more weeks. I don't think Colin was trying to spread fud (at least I certainly didn't take it that way), I think he was just trying to make a point that cvsup can be time consuming if you don't update often. However, if you DO update often, it IS pretty fast. I'm interested to hear what the results are.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417FB29D.8030004>