On Thu, 16 May 2002, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > Tbyte, yes. /whack self for not remember TB vs Tb. Obviously not all of > > that is debian, but it's a significant percentage now. > > Welp, that is a pretty big number then. Lots of ram and a fast disk array > I hope.
it copes.. i could always do with more disk and ram but lets just say the corporate sponsorship/support market is completely dead at the moment :-( > Boa eh. Interesting choice. In the past it did have large numbers of > problems. I think most of them were solved - but I don't know if those > patches made it into the tree you are using. i tried tux, thttpd and boa. out of those three, boa ended up being the most successfull (i.e working). > > at the moment, my primary concern is still to figure out some way of > > dealing with lack of 302 support for .gz file fetches by apt. i don't > > suppose you feel like just deciding to not have any .gz files in > > the debian archive instead (i.e just leave Packages* everywhere > > uncompressed) :-) > > Er? Why? because then i could put the rewrite rule back that shunted .gz downloads out of the main webserver into boa. at present, Packages.gz is fetched by apt which breaks on the 302 if i do that. of course if you didn't compress anything, then that would be ok, but it was a joke suggestion because i'd really prefer if 302 support was implemented, even if was such that users could turn it off if they wanted regards, -jason -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
