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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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 Percivalhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44491437.8040306>