On 29 January 2014 13:51, Colin Percival <cperc...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 01/29/14 12:51, Lars Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 09:11:04AM -0600, Mark Felder wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014, at 5:32, Lars Engels wrote: >>>> Also using freebsd-update behind a proxy is really slow. Even with a >>>> very fast internet connection (normally download rates ca. 3 MBytes / >>>> s) downloading all the tiny binary diff files took more than 8 hours. >>>> Maybe freebsd-update's backend could create a tarball of all those >>>> diffs and provide this? >>> >>> Even streaming the tar instead of waiting for the freebsd-update server >>> to produce the tarball would be an improvement. I have no experience >>> doing that over a WAN but I don't see why it would be unreliable. >> >> Colin, what do you think? Is it possible? > > Anything is *possible*, but given that the number of patches available is > typically at least 10x the number being fetched this doesn't seem like it > would be very efficient. > > FWIW, the performance problems with proxies are limited to HTTP proxies > which don't speak HTTP/1.1.
Did you / others ever actually benchmark this? I know that Squid supports pipelined requests but only a handful (defaulting to 1) at a time, as the actual error semantics for HTTP/1.1 pipelining wasn't well defined. So flipping it around - which intermediaries that are actually in use by companies and such actually support pipelining at the level that you're doing it? -a _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"