On 6/26/07, Ivan Krstić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> term one. It's still my *strong* hunch that we are not going to run
> into any issues whatsoever given our update sizes and the fact that
> we're serving them from reasonably beefy school server machines, so
> adding this functionality to rsync would easily be a post-FRS goal.
I concur. Rate-limiting is certainly a viable option for FRS if
server resources are an issue, and the *network* characteristics of
rsync are certainly in the right ballpark. I suspect that we won't
need to hack rsync ourselves at all, since rsync 3.0 will Do What We
Want. But we'll see what Wayne says about the timeline of rsync 3.0.
> Scott, are you willing to do a few tests and grab some real numbers,
> using previous OLPC OS images, for resource utilization on the school
> server in the face of e.g. 5, 10, 20, 50 parallel updates?
I might need some help getting access to enough clients, but I have no
problem doing the benchmarks. Tridge, do you have any recommendations
about benchmarking rsync?
--scott
--
( http://cscott.net/ )
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
