It'll take me some time to find a new, and more appropriate home for
apt-torrent.
The Debian archive (experimental distribution) would be a *very*
appropriate home.
It won't provide a testbed package seeder or place to download .torrent files,
but that can be done later (and by any number
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Arnaud Kyheng wrote:
Hello all and Happy New Year,
Thanks to George, apt-torrent has been mentioned in the Debian Devel
list :o)
I've just noticed it, and the fun part of this discovery, is that I also
found why my ISP has closed sianka.free.fr: Too much hits since
Hello all and Happy New Year,
Thanks to George, apt-torrent has been mentioned in the Debian Devel
list :o)
I've just noticed it, and the fun part of this discovery, is that I also
found why my ISP has closed sianka.free.fr: Too much hits since the
latest Debian Weekly News, and the new
I've just noticed it, and the fun part of this discovery, is that I also
found why my ISP has closed sianka.free.fr: Too much hits since the
latest Debian Weekly News, and the new apt-torrent 0.3.1-1 package !
The solution is simple: get it in the Debian archive..:)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Am 2005-12-27 16:25:10, schrieb Bernd Eckenfels:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
apt-get update apt-get --download-only upgrade
It would make more sense to send out the DIFFs to the packages.gz, so you
dont actually need to download the packages file every five minutes.
But if
Am 2005-12-21 16:32:20, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
I have 10240kBit downstream and get way less from security.debian.org.
Especialy when there is a security release of X or latex.
They are two possibilitys:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe with an seperated E-Mail and track it.
Check the E-Mail
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe with an seperated E-Mail and track it.
Check the E-Mail in a delay of 5 minutes. Write a script (we do not
want to download Packages.gz, if there is no Pakage of interest) which
check, whether the new package is installed on
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/21/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who need PARALELISM and who has a bandwidth of more then 8 MBit?
I have 10240kBit downstream and get way less from security.debian.org.
Especialy when there is a security release of X or
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am 2005-12-12 13:23:01, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
Actualy one thing apt could do:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% host security.debian.org
security.debian.org A 82.94.249.158
security.debian.org A 128.101.80.133
security.debian.org
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am 2005-12-06 09:53:43, schrieb Ivan Adams:
Hi again,
in my case:
I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same
^^^
connection
in my local area network, who have apt-proxy.
My goal is: When I need
On 12/21/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who need PARALELISM and who has a bandwidth of more then 8 MBit?
I have 10240kBit downstream and get way less from security.debian.org.
Especialy when there is a security release of X or latex.
But parallel downloads won't solve
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 12/21/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who need PARALELISM and who has a bandwidth of more then 8 MBit?
I have 10240kBit downstream and get way less from security.debian.org.
Especialy when there is a security release of X
Am 2005-12-05 16:11:35, schrieb Joe Smith:
This person is requesting parallel downloads from multiple servers. So
basicly during package download, if there are three full and up-to-date
mirrors in sources.list, there should be simulatious downloads of different
packages from all three
Am 2005-12-06 09:53:43, schrieb Ivan Adams:
Hi again,
in my case:
I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same
^^^
connection
in my local area network, who have apt-proxy.
My goal is: When I need to install new system (Debian) on new user,
Am 2005-12-12 13:23:01, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
Actualy one thing apt could do:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% host security.debian.org
security.debian.org A 82.94.249.158
security.debian.org A 128.101.80.133
security.debian.org A 194.109.137.218
Why not open 3
Am 2005-12-12 17:06:28, schrieb Bas Zoetekouw:
But what would you gain from that? In my experience, the mirrors are
fast enough to saturate anything but the fastest (100Mb) links.
FullACK! - OK, I have currently only an E3 in Paris,
but if all goes right I will get my own FiberOptic
2005/12/13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Time to devise a way to teach it about that, then. HOW to do it is the big
problem, though. How should one deal with round-robin DNS mirrors which are
supposed to be equal, but are not. What are the failure modes to cater
for?
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
ISTM the easiest would be for apt to lookup the hostname itself and
treat the single entry as a list of entires, one for each possible
address the hostname can resolve to. If one fails, try the next.
apt already does that
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
That's not true. Suppose you've only got 3 users. If each user
connects to one (different) mirror, he gets 1/1 of that mirror's
bandwidth. If each user connects to each mirror, he only gets 1/3 of
that mirror's bandwidth.
They could get 1/1
On 13 Dec 2005 15:56:00 +0100, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
That's not true. Suppose you've only got 3 users. If each user
connects to one (different) mirror, he gets 1/1 of that mirror's
bandwidth. If each user connects to each
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 14:41, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 13 Dec 2005 15:56:00 +0100, Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
That's not true. Suppose you've only got 3 users. If each user
connects to one (different) mirror, he gets
Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
THis is not something that would bother anyone if it is a single user... but
if you have 10k users doing that, often close enough in time, well, things
should get MUCH worse as far as I can see. If they are doing this at random
times in
On 12/13/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assume a situation where mirror bandwidth is the limiting factor, and
imagine a world with 3 mirrors. Say that during a certain time of the
day 600 users each minute start to download updated x.org packages.
Either they can do their
Scripsit Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/13/05, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively each user can spread his load over all three servers;
his download now takes 5 minutes, and each server _still_ sees
600*5 = 3000 active connections at any time. Thus _all_ users
Thanks ...We don't want them to open multiple connections even to MULTIPLE servers...
2005/12/12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We don't want them to open multiple connections even to MULTIPLE servers...
That's odd though, because apt *does* open connections to multiple
servers all the time. To fetch packages lists, or if a package is only
available on one of the
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:45:50AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 11, Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single
repository, only one of them is currently used.
Which is fine,
Can have option in /etc/apt/apt.conf or apt-get (install || upgrade) with -? some char here for parallelism.And by default can be disabled ...
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2005/12/12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We don't want them to open multiple connections even to
MULTIPLE servers...
That's odd though, because apt *does* open connections to multiple servers all
the time.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
2005/12/12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We don't want them to open multiple connections even to MULTIPLE
servers...
That's odd though, because apt *does* open connections to multiple servers
all the time. To fetch
On Dec 12, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not open 3 connections one to each host?
Why do?
Or at least fall back to the other IPs if the first one gives an
error?
I hope that this already happens...
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Dec 12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use more than a single server by itself... I didn't think it common practice
for large mirror to configure multi-megabyte windows...
TCP/IP windows? Or user bw shaping?
He means the TCP window size, and it *is* common practice
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 12, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use more than a single server by itself... I didn't think it common
practice
for large mirror to configure multi-megabyte windows...
TCP/IP windows? Or user bw shaping?
He means
Scripsit Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. We care about a large lot of people a lot more than we care for an
individual's downloading speed
2. Thus we try to keep the mirror load down, and downloading hundreds of
megabytes using multiple connections to multiple sources
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:52:09PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
True, but that's not what's being asked here. If multiple URLs could
serve requests for a single repository---i.e., if you've got both
deb http://ftp1.CC.debian.org/debian
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I read the proposal, it is about downloading _different_
files from different mirrors - if you have 25 packages to get for your
'apt-get update' operation, download 5 packages from each of 5
different servers, with one connection to each
As far as I read the proposal, it is about downloading _different_files from different mirrors - if you have 25 packages to get for your
'apt-get update' operation, download 5 packages from each of 5different servers, with one connection to each server active at atime.That is what I mean ...
On 12/12/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I read the proposal, it is about downloading _different_
files from different mirrors - if you have 25 packages to get for your
'apt-get update' operation, download 5 packages from each of 5
different servers, with one connection
My goal is using more bandwidth with apt-proxy servers on my friends, who have other internet connection.And I want to download first packet from my internet and second packet at the same time from the apt-proxy with my friend internet connection.
Now, I can only download all packets from my
Ivan Adams wrote:
My goal is using more bandwidth with apt-proxy servers on my friends, who
have other internet connection.
And I want to download first packet from my internet and second packet at
the same time from the apt-proxy with my friend internet connection.
Now, I can only download
Hi Ivan!
You wrote:
As far as I read the proposal, it is about downloading _different_
files from different mirrors - if you have 25 packages to get for your
'apt-get update' operation, download 5 packages from each of 5
different servers, with one connection to each server
Hi,
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
But what would you gain from that? In my experience, the mirrors are
fast enough to saturate anything but the fastest (100Mb) links.
I think the idea is
a) load-balancing over multiple DSL lines
b) checking a bunch of apt-proxy servers whether they can provide
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Or at least fall back to the other IPs if the first one gives an
error?
I hope that this already happens...
apt doesn't know anything about round robin dns, and especially with
secure apt, if one mirror gets out of sync things break horribly. This
recently happened with
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
Or at least fall back to the other IPs if the first one gives an
error?
I hope that this already happens...
apt doesn't know anything about round robin dns, and especially with
secure apt, if one mirror gets out of sync things
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 02:45:50AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 11, Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single
repository, only one of them is currently used.
Which is fine, because we do not want people to open multiple
On Dec 11, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but that's not what's being asked here. If multiple URLs could
serve requests for a single repository---i.e., if you've got both
deb http://ftp1.CC.debian.org/debian unstable main
and
deb http://ftp2.CC.debian.org/debian unstable
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 11, Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single
repository, only one of them is currently used.
Which is fine, because we do not want people to open multiple
connections to the
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:09:39AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I doubt very much so parallel downloads will be added to apt.
Could be added Release-file based.
Parallelize only unrelated pools, and disabled by default to avoid
conflict wiht apt-proxy (if any).
ie: Debian and Foo
This one time, at band camp, Cosimo Alfarano said:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:09:39AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I doubt very much so parallel downloads will be added to apt.
Could be added Release-file based.
Parallelize only unrelated pools, and disabled by default to avoid
Seperate repositiories are already parallelized, which is what I think
you are asking for here.
But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single
repository, only one of them is currently used.
Ideally, the amount of parallelism could match the number of redundant
URLs
On Dec 11, Charles Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if multiple URLs could satisfactorily serve requests for a single
repository, only one of them is currently used.
Which is fine, because we do not want people to open multiple
connections to the same server.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, Ivan Adams wrote:
I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same connection
in my local area network, who have apt-proxy.
My goal is: When I need to install new system (Debian) on new user, or
dist-upgrade on entire system, I need the unstable packets
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 13:09, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, Ivan Adams wrote:
I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same
connection in my local area network, who have apt-proxy.
My goal is: When I need to install new system (Debian) on
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, George Danchev wrote:
apt-torrent seems to approach that too:
http://sianka.free.fr/documentation.html
Now, THAT is something nice. BitTorrent won't overload the mirrors ever.
--
One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the
Hi, I'll be so glad to see next (or one of the next) version of the apt package, to have PARALLELISM.For example if I have more than one row pointing to one stage (stable testing or unstable) in /etc/apt/sources.list, apt to get one packet from one server, and at the same time to get second packet
On 12/5/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: (/etc/apt/sources.list)
deb http://ftp.en.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
in this case the stable packages will be ONLY downloaded from first server
from
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/5/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: (/etc/apt/sources.list)
deb http://ftp.en.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
in
On 12/5/05, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/5/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: (/etc/apt/sources.list)
deb http://ftp.en.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
deb
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/5/05, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/5/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: (/etc/apt/sources.list)
deb
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005, Joe Smith wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 12/5/05, Ivan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Example: (/etc/apt/sources.list)
deb http://ftp.en.debian.org/debian main stable contrib non-free
deb
Le Mardi 6 Décembre 2005 02:50, Joe Smith a écrit :
Now it is useless for users where the bottleneck is on their end.
Well, it can also be usefull in case of a broken mirror can't it?
Romain
--
Not even the dog
That piss against the wall of Babylon,
Shall escape his judgement
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Mardi 6 Décembre 2005 02:50, Joe Smith a écrit :
Now it is useless for users where the bottleneck is on their end.
Well, it can also be usefull in case of a broken mirror can't it?
apt already handles that and skips to the next mirror.
--
Hi again,in my case:I have slow internet connection. BUT I have friends with the same connection in my local area network, who have apt-proxy.My
goal is: When I need to install new system (Debian) on new user, or
dist-upgrade on entire system, I need the unstable packets from site.
In this case I
63 matches
Mail list logo
