Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Guido Falsi wrote:
> portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
> are more frequently using other servers now.
>
> A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap
> simply timed out and tried another server shortly after.
Not sure if it's related, but portsnap5 is also IPv6 at this writing:
ro...@mycroft:~$ for suffix in `seq 1 7`; do host
portsnap${suffix}.freebsd.org; done
portsnap1.freebsd.org has address 204.109.56.116
portsnap2.freebsd.org has address 208.83.221.214
portsnap3.freebsd.org has address 212.101.4.241
portsnap4.freebsd.org has address 93.158.155.199
portsnap5.freebsd.org has address 204.9.55.80
portsnap5.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4978:1:420::cc09:3750
portsnap6.freebsd.org has address 149.20.53.40
portsnap6.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:3:ffe0::40
Host portsnap7.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Note also that the update and portsnap servers appear to be relatively
independent of one another, with only the "5" server sharing the same
IP:
ro...@mycroft:~$ for suffix in `seq 1 7`; do host
portsnap${suffix}.freebsd.org; done
portsnap1.freebsd.org has address 204.109.56.116
portsnap2.freebsd.org has address 208.83.221.214
portsnap3.freebsd.org has address 212.101.4.241
portsnap4.freebsd.org has address 93.158.155.199
portsnap5.freebsd.org has address 204.9.55.80
portsnap5.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4978:1:420::cc09:3750
portsnap6.freebsd.org has address 149.20.53.40
portsnap6.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:3:ffe0::40
Host portsnap7.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Royce
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Royce Williams
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
>> are more frequently using other servers now.
>>
>> A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap
>> simply timed out and tried another server shortly after.
>
> Not sure if it's related, but portsnap5 is also IPv6 at this writing:
>
> ro...@mycroft:~$ for suffix in `seq 1 7`; do host
> portsnap${suffix}.freebsd.org; done
> portsnap1.freebsd.org has address 204.109.56.116
> portsnap2.freebsd.org has address 208.83.221.214
> portsnap3.freebsd.org has address 212.101.4.241
> portsnap4.freebsd.org has address 93.158.155.199
> portsnap5.freebsd.org has address 204.9.55.80
> portsnap5.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4978:1:420::cc09:3750
> portsnap6.freebsd.org has address 149.20.53.40
> portsnap6.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:3:ffe0::40
> Host portsnap7.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
>
> Note also that the update and portsnap servers appear to be relatively
> independent of one another, with only the "5" server sharing the same
> IP:
Er, cut-and-paste error ... sorry; it's early in Alaska ...
ro...@mycroft:~$ for suffix in `seq 1 7`; do host
update${suffix}.freebsd.org; done
Host update1.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
update2.freebsd.org has address 149.20.53.40
update2.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:3:ffe0::40
update3.freebsd.org has address 147.229.9.40
update4.freebsd.org has address 209.193.13.98
update5.freebsd.org has address 204.9.55.80
update5.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4978:1:420::cc09:3750
Host update6.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Host update7.freebsd.org not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Royce
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:22PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote: > >> > >>Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV: > >> > >>$ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org. > >> > > > >Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite > >normal. > > I am seeing similiar issues with portsnap5. > Are you pointing portsnap to update? > > host -t srv _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap6.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 20 80 portsnap5.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 2 10 80 portsnap4.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap1.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap2.FreeBSD.org. I'm getting the same DNS result you're getting. portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems are more frequently using other servers now. A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap simply timed out and tried another server shortly after. -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:13:51PM +0200, Guido Falsi thus spake: On 10/21/10 18:17, Royce Williams wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RW wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsi wrote: I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards portsnap5. If you define a cache environment variable the random choice is seeded by that to improve the caching. There may also be some weighting in the SRV record. Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV: $ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org. Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite normal. I am seeing similiar issues with portsnap5. Are you pointing portsnap to update? host -t srv _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap6.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 20 80 portsnap5.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 2 10 80 portsnap4.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap1.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap2.FreeBSD.org. -jgh -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" -- Jason Helfman System Administrator experts-exchange.com http://www.experts-exchange.com/M_4830110.html ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On 10/21/10 18:17, Royce Williams wrote: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RW wrote: On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsi wrote: I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards portsnap5. If you define a cache environment variable the random choice is seeded by that to improve the caching. There may also be some weighting in the SRV record. Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV: $ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org. Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite normal. -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RW wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsi wrote: > >> I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards >> portsnap5. > If you define a cache environment variable the random choice is seeded > by that to improve the caching. There may also be some weighting in the > SRV record. Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV: $ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org. _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org. Royce ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsi wrote: > I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards > portsnap5. > > I mean, all these machines are always choosing mirror number five. > > Some are behind squid proxies and using them for portsnap, so I think > this can be expected and caused in some way by some cached data, but > some are connecting directly. > > Is this in some way expected? If you define a cache environment variable the random choice is seeded by that to improve the caching. There may also be some weighting in the SRV record. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:02:47PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:53:24PM +0200, Barbara wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST) > > > Barbara articulated: > > > > > >> $ date > > >> Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010 > > >> > > >> # portsnap fetch update > > >> Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found. > > >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed. > > >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done. > > > > > > From time to time, "portsnap' does that. It usually remedies itself > > > within 24 hours. Other than being a potential superficial annoyance, I > > > doubt that it causes any serious harm. I have noticed that #5 seems to > > > be the most troublesome server however. > > > > My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the > > annoyance. > > I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5. > > If it's "expected", no problem. > > I think freebsd-hubs@ is the list where most of the cvsup and portsnap > mirror/owners live. I'd consider posting concerns there. I have a related question. I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards portsnap5. I mean, all these machines are always choosing mirror number five. Some are behind squid proxies and using them for portsnap, so I think this can be expected and caused in some way by some cached data, but some are connecting directly. Is this in some way expected? My portsnap.conf file is th stock one. Could this also due to DNS cacheing? Thank you for any information, and excuse me if my question is plain stupid :D -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On 10/20/10 7:14 PM, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Barbara on Wednesday, 20 October 2010: >> >> My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance. >> I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5. >> If it's "expected", no problem. >> > > Was "alter" a parapraxis? > I'd imagine 's/alter/alert/'. Cheers, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
Quoth Barbara on Wednesday, 20 October 2010: > > My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance. > I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5. > If it's "expected", no problem. > Was "alter" a parapraxis? -- Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com | 2048D/3A978E4F http://camdensoftware.com | http://chipstips.com| http://chipsquips.com pgpGJucW80Kno.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:53:24PM +0200, Barbara wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST) > > Barbara articulated: > > > >> $ date > >> Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010 > >> > >> # portsnap fetch update > >> Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found. > >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed. > >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done. > > > > From time to time, "portsnap' does that. It usually remedies itself > > within 24 hours. Other than being a potential superficial annoyance, I > > doubt that it causes any serious harm. I have noticed that #5 seems to > > be the most troublesome server however. > > My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance. > I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5. > If it's "expected", no problem. I think freebsd-hubs@ is the list where most of the cvsup and portsnap mirror/owners live. I'd consider posting concerns there. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST) > Barbara articulated: > >> $ date >> Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010 >> >> # portsnap fetch update >> Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found. >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed. >> Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done. > > From time to time, "portsnap' does that. It usually remedies itself > within 24 hours. Other than being a potential superficial annoyance, I > doubt that it causes any serious harm. I have noticed that #5 seems to > be the most troublesome server however. My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance. I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5. If it's "expected", no problem. Thanks Barbara ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST) Barbara articulated: > $ date > Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010 > > # portsnap fetch update > Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found. > Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed. > Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done. From time to time, "portsnap' does that. It usually remedies itself within 24 hours. Other than being a potential superficial annoyance, I doubt that it causes any serious harm. I have noticed that #5 seems to be the most troublesome server however. -- Jerry ✌ freebsd-ports.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?
$ date Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010 # portsnap fetch update Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed. Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
