> > > IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> > > the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> > > users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
> >
> > Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figur
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is "you" here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
> useful when the files change. Files s
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> >
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I c
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
>
> Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
useful when the files change. Files should nev
> > Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> > method for fetching Packages files?
>
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> users, they don't have the (CPU)
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:20:19AM -0700, Ian Bruce said
> Now that gzip has the "--rsyncable" option, wouldn't it be feasible to
> rsync against compressed Packages files rather than having to keep the
> uncompressed ones around for this purpose?
You have to explicitly enable this option, which i
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so
> while the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to
> 100s of users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen
On Oct 26, Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files? It's the only mechanism I'm aware of
Because it's hard on servers, for a start.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [8782 diFcw3LT7Erlw]
signature.asc
Desc
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 09.20, Ian Bruce wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files?
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 1
message:
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:10:28 -0700
From: Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: apt-proxy v2 and rsync
I was distressed to read the following in the documentation for the new
apt-proxy:
- rsync is not officially supp
11 matches
Mail list logo
