Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote: >>If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do >>it. > > Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10 > times the changes?
Yes. Each time you run CVSup, it transmits a list of all the files in the tree; if your ports tree is almost up-to-date already, then this "overhead" cost is in fact the largest contributor to the bandwidth used. This problem does not occur with portsnap to any significant extent; updating once an hour uses less than 1% extra bandwidth compared to updating every day. > Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap. Is there any reason in the world > why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of ports > from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap today? The other common reason for being unable to use portsnap is if a user has made their own personal changes to a port (e.g., an added patch). Portsnap will remove such changes the next time the port is updated, while cvs will attempt to merge the modifications. Colin Percival _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
