Bob Sanders wrote: >On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:25:25 +0000 >Mick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>What's the pros/cons of mounting portage over NFS Vs http-replicator? >> >> > > >If you only have one architecture and one system type or one system that >can be a superset of the others, nfs will serve you fine. > >If you have multiple architectures, the packages release at different >times and sometimes different revs. For this http-replicator is a >better choice. > >For example - I run x86, amd64, and power pc. Thus, need a broader >spectrum of packages. > >Or if you run desktops and servers (different sets of software) and don't >have a common set of USE flags - use say, lighttpd, php, and mysql on the >server but not on the desktop. Or more likely, use postfix, sasl, tinydns, >and procmail on the server, but not the desktop (assumes the desktop uses >LDAP or POP). Then http-replicator would be a better choice. > >Bob >- > >
Could a person use NFS for the distfles then use rsync for the snapshot or sync part?? I have used the rsync before and it works fine, especially when I was on a 26K dial-up which sucked. Dale :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
