Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:00:50 +0100
From:      Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>
To:        Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
Message-ID:  <20101119090050.GA37868@megatron.madpilot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20101109210322.GD11785@eggman.experts-exchange.com>
References:  <19264903.2523091287604404630.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <20101020200247.GA60489@icarus.home.lan> <20101021083124.GA50114@megatron.madpilot.net> <20101021115121.282ecadb@gumby.homeunix.com> <AANLkTinBbf8XkR445uj3Ku7vZB8ZHQOQypqL_zngjf7d@mail.gmail.com> <4CC082DF.2080203@madpilot.net> <20101109210322.GD11785@eggman.experts-exchange.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:22PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote:
> >>
> >>Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV:
> >>
> >>$ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org.
> >>
> >
> >Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite
> >normal.
> 
> I am seeing similiar issues with portsnap5.
> Are you pointing portsnap to update?
> 
> host -t srv _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap6.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 20 80 portsnap5.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 2 10 80 portsnap4.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap1.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap2.FreeBSD.org.

I'm getting the same DNS result you're getting.

portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
are more frequently using other servers now.

A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap
simply timed out and tried another server shortly after.

-- 
Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101119090050.GA37868>