On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:50:53AM -0600, Rajko M. wrote: > On Saturday 10 March 2007 19:07, Josef Wolf wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 07:30:08AM -0600, Rajko M. wrote: > ... > > > "User friendly" where to many choices can confuse user ;-) > > > > This "user friendliness" results in: > > > > - increased load on the mirrors (since packages are downloaded although > > they are available in my local squid cache) > > - thrashing of my squid cache (packages are stored multiple times there) > > - slooooow installs (since packages need to be downlaoded from slow > > mirrors through the net although they are available locally in my squid > > cache) > > > > This is what you call "user friendly"? Artifically slowing down the > > install procedure is "user friendly"? > > "Artifically" is not the case. People are trying to make installer > faster, but obviously they have few more > > Is there any particular reason that you want to use squid, or it is used > anyway and having cached files is nice convenience?
Well, I'm trying to speed up the installation process. There is no way that downloading through the DSL line (probably using some slow mirror from an different continent) could be faster than retrieving them with 100MBps from my local squid cache. Squid on my external router caches everything on port 80 anyway. Therefore the patches are cached, too if I select some HTTP source. But the cache is pretty worthless when every installed box uses a different source. This is why I want the possibility to choose a specific mirror at installation time. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
