On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Boyes wrote:
On 3/4/10 3:05 PM, "R P Herrold" <herr...@owlriver.com> wrote:
perhaps, but it hardly seems fair to the engineering work that
Red Hat has done to bootstrap in that way.
On the other hand, he's on the far end of a very long, very
constrained pipe, and there are distributed RH repositories
on his end of the pipe. It's a bootstrap, nothing more. Who
knows, he might just stop at RHEL?
one preliminary matter; I do not know that I have ever seen an
official representation by Red Hat as to its peak or sustained
transfer capacity, and the profile of the same; from my CentOS
work, I know that we at CentOS regularly find we are 'more
reachible' with updates than our upstream. I had to check
twice as to the numbers on a transfer rate from one of the
kernel.org mirrors as it was over 45Meg Bytes/Sec, compared to
an observed transfer rate from Red Hat to the same destination
site less than a tenth of that rate
* nod *
I appreciate, and acknowledge the FOSS friendly approach that
Red Hat takes and has taken on a sustained basis -- but I know
that 'bills gotta be paid, before the ship weighs anchor' and
thus my comment.
Another approach is the old adage that 'it is hard to beat the
bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes' -- times change
but getting the images burnt to media and shipped, as from
LinuxCD.Org is surprisingly affordable. In discussions with
that vendor for our cloud product [ http://www.pmman.com/ ],
they have been most accomodating and responsive as we've been
doing a new feature
-- Russ herrold
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
