Matthew Seaman <[email protected]> wrote: > Efficiency, basically. csup should require less bandwidth and put less > load on servers than using cvs directly. It works like rsync,
Actually, csup is much more efficient than rsync because it can cache the meta information and so doesn't have to perform a stat() on each file. That doesn't matter so much on the client (compare plain csup vs. csup -s), but it is quite significant on the server. And anon cvs is just an enormous hog on the server side. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
