Re: [OT] How to serve apt. http vs nfs

2009-01-08 Diskussionsfäden Holger Levsen
Hi,

I also only use apt via http, usually with squid as a proxy. 

I do this, due the ease of setup and because I can use http everywhere. Using 
nfs is faster though: with http, the .debs get first downloaded (and written) 
to /var/cache/apt/archives and then are unpacked, while if you use nfs (or 
rather apts file transfer), they will be directly unpacked.

If this speed gain is worth the more complicated setup, is up to you.


regards,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [OT] How to serve apt. http vs nfs

2009-01-08 Diskussionsfäden Thomas Lange
 On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:58:11 +0100, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org 
 said:

  Using nfs is faster though: 
No, not really. I did some performance tests in the past, and there were
no real differences in the installation times. Sometimes http was slightly
faster than NFS, but I think this was the cause of the NFS server.

HTTP is easier to set up IMO, that's why I use HTTP.
-- 
regards Thomas


Re: [OT] How to serve apt. http vs nfs

2009-01-08 Diskussionsfäden Holger Levsen
Hi Thomas,

On Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2009, Thomas Lange wrote:
 No, not really. I did some performance tests in the past, and there were
 no real differences in the installation times. Sometimes http was slightly
 faster than NFS, but I think this was the cause of the NFS server.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

 HTTP is easier to set up IMO, that's why I use HTTP.

Yeah, especially on the internet and in DMZs :)


regards,
Holger



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [OT] How to serve apt. http vs nfs

2009-01-08 Diskussionsfäden Henning Glawe
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:41:00PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
 On Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2009, Thomas Lange wrote:
  No, not really. I did some performance tests in the past, and there were
  no real differences in the installation times. Sometimes http was slightly
  faster than NFS, but I think this was the cause of the NFS server.
 
 Interesting, thanks for the info.

well, nfs has the advantage of working with smaller /var partitions, as the
packages do not have to be stored there between downloading and installing ;)

ok, this is not so important anymore, as hard disks are bigger now than what
our machines had in 2001. 

-- 
c u
henning