From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 20 02:54:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C206116A4B3 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E194343FA3 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9K9scE7008768; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:54:38 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 03:52:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20031020.035232.08284225.imp@bsdimp.com> To: marck@rinet.ru From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20031020134508.P36677@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <200310200705.JAA06855@galaxy.hbg.de.ao-srv.com> <20031020.031124.05471800.imp@bsdimp.com> <20031020134508.P36677@woozle.rinet.ru> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rsync vs installworld X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:54:43 -0000 In message: <20031020134508.P36677@woozle.rinet.ru> Dmitry Morozovsky writes: : On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : MWL> In message: <200310200705.JAA06855@galaxy.hbg.de.ao-srv.com> : MWL> Helge Oldach writes: : MWL> : Rsync doesn't deal with file flags (chflags(2)). Thus my personal : MWL> : preference for updating machines is making installworld on a file system : MWL> : exported by the build server. : MWL> : MWL> I'm looking for ways to avoid having NFS run on the network in : MWL> question at all. : : netpipe by dds@ then? The first drawback of course is that netpipe opens : back-connection which isn't good for strict firewalls, but I think this could : be avoided by inventing something like "passive netpipe" mode... I'm not familiar with this. Can you proivde a URL? Warner