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 Percival _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
