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?

freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to