(Trimming CC line...) On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:26:33PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * Paul Schmehl (pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com) wrote: > > > > In my case, over a few retries, switch is the fastest, followed by > > > surfnet. heatnet is only somewhere between 500-700K. > > > dfn, garr: and ovh fail. > > > > It might be way too much work for very little benefit, but network > > latencies > > being what they are, perhaps there should be a routine that runs > > periodically > > and adjusts the list according to some connectivity parameters? (Yeah, I > > know, > > easy for me to say. I don't have to write the code.) > > That's really too much work for a little benefit. The only thing > we really want from mirrors is fetchability, and as soon as we have > multiple mirrors that's achieved. Speed is a different issue and, > as my survey shows, mirrors can't be sorted once and forever to > satisfy the whole world, so if you feel like downloads are slow, > just add your favorte mirror into make.conf, like I did a long time > ago. The utility to do it automatically would be useful though, and > actually you can write one. Actually, something even more clever > could be written, similar to RANDOMIZE_MASTER_SITES, but based on > fetch speed feedback, but that'd be an overcomplication if you ask me.
There is ports-mgmt/fastest_sites which sorts based upon round-trip time for the TCP handshake to complete. It's not accurate for download speeds but it provides a rough approximation for minimal effort. -- WXS _______________________________________________ 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"
