Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 09:44:19 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: Henri Reinikainen <henrixd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports tree Message-ID: <4FC097E3.3080705@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADfhKMJvDzc_V_nhTBrOT%2BQRVCPRyGAffD7n52G5oq2oUc3ZgA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADfhKMJvDzc_V_nhTBrOT%2BQRVCPRyGAffD7n52G5oq2oUc3ZgA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig8BF8EA0D6B5B26C56EF67B62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 26/05/2012 07:57, Henri Reinikainen wrote: > Would it be stupid idea to have publicly available, mountable (nfs) > partition, with full port tree(s)? I think it would be good for > systems with low storage space. I know hd space is cheap, but I run > over and over to this problem. >=20 > I don't know how easily it could be done, but some kind of session > based temporary write permissions would be good too. To be able to > make && make install directly from mounted partition. >=20 > I don't think very many people would need to have local personal copy > of ports tree then. >=20 > So, is this just stupid? Not stupid, but certainly impracticable. Remote mounting filesystems over the internet is not going to be anything like scalable, and the bandwidth requirements would be horrid. As an end-user, performance would suck -- inescapably, as you'ld be hit hard by latency. Basically, if you could afford the sort of network connectivity that would make such a setup feasible, then you could easily afford sufficient local storage that you wouldn't want to use a remote mount. Also, forget the idea of *writing* to any such share disk space. The security problems with that just don't bear thinking about. NFS mounting /usr/ports within a local network -- now, that's a completely different kettle of fish. You do need to tweak WRKDIRPREFIX if you're going to have several systems building from the same tree simultaneously, and it's probably going to be more effective for you to use one machine as a central package build server and just install from packages on your limited systems. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey --------------enig8BF8EA0D6B5B26C56EF67B62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/Al+kACgkQ8Mjk52CukIx1bACdHA1rtmSHdvZnyJa5ARztU8J7 WwIAnAti3m0XlO12GzA8lWRkVivSIu+8 =n/59 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig8BF8EA0D6B5B26C56EF67B62--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC097E3.3080705>