Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:19:51 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> Cc: Benjamin Lutz <benlutz@datacomm.ch>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsnap mirror servers Message-ID: <44491437.8040306@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1145629460.3188.27.camel@dell8600.dlib.vt.edu> References: <3aaaa3a0604171743y33af6355udf750eca65605920@mail.gmail.com> <44456BC2.1050102@freebsd.org> <200604211440.28535.benlutz@datacomm.ch> <1145629460.3188.27.camel@dell8600.dlib.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Mather wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:40 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote: >> Hm, but I see a quite noticeable speed difference between portsnap1 and >> portsnap2. The second one is quite a bit faster. I'll look into this over the summer. > I notice that on 4.x portsnap never finds any mirrors because the grep > of the output returned by "host -t srv ..." is not appropriate for 4.x's > version of /usr/bin/host, which produces output different to that of 5.x > onwards (a BIND8 vs BIND9 issue, I guess). So, maybe because of this, > all of the portsnaps running on 4.x machines are hitting the same server > each time instead of randomly choosing a mirror, thereby causing that > mirror to be a bit more loaded? They are hitting the same server, but that server is portsnap2 (which is also portsnap.daemonology.net, which is the default server for pre-1.0 versions of portsnap from the ports tree). Given that most systems running portsnap are FreeBSD 6.0 or 6.1, this doesn't cause much differential loading. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44491437.8040306>