Hi,
thanks for useful and relevant information. However, this is just one
part of the process. Generating the diffs,
prepping the server, and the whole server-side setup/management of it
is another - I am sure there are tools for this too.
Cheers,
Daniel.
On Jan 6, 2009, at 6:30 PM, Vincent Hoffman wrote:
Daniel Bond wrote:
The same could be said about CVSup, one could write a caching cvsup
proxy-server, and then we could just get rid of all the other
cvsup-servers, except two (like freebsd-update soon will have). The
point is, for portsnap and freebsd-update to scale properly, it needs
to be opened up to the public, like CVSup is. People running a single
server at home, or maybee two, most like won't want to set up a PROXY
server, and they would be required to update both servers at the same
day for the Proxy server to actually cache something - which many may
not want. And there are a lot of people running a few servers, here
and there.
Sure, a national squid-proxy could work - although, there is no
individual proxy setting for portsnap/freebsd-update.. It honors
HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which a lot of other tools also use.
Some tools might not work via this proxy, especially for local
addresses - the administrators of these servers probably don't want
all the ports tarballs to go via these, and people could use them for
nasty things. So, then we are back to manually setting/specifying the
proxy-server, each time one wants to run the commands - which people
might forget. (Is this getting complicated enough yet..?) We would
basically be creating a whole lot of new potential problems for the
users, to solve the problem in question..
I am also interested in learning how the portsnap protocol works,
maybe there are potential issues with it, that a second eye might
spot, or room for improvement? From what I gather, Colin is a very
cleaver guy, so it is not very likely, but still, other people could
learn from it.
well portsnap/freebsd-update are shell scripts so not too hard to
read.
The actual transfer protocol is piplined http and is done by
/usr/libexec/phttpget (in base so src code available
/usr/src/usr.sbin/portsnap/phttpget/phttpget.c )
also see http://www.daemonology.net/phttpget/
I would like to see these tools as the default recommended tools to
use in the future, and that is why I am so worried about this.
The point I am trying to make is, or actually the question is: Why is
freebsd-update (and portsnap) so secretive? Why can't the average Joe
run his own portsnap-mirror at home? What are we afraid of?
I seem to remember once reading that Colin wanted to make it a more
polished system before he release it, but i cant find that email
anymore.
Vince
I don't see any problems with this, except maybe loosing some detail
in Colin's nice graphs (which would be the case for proxies too).
Cheers,
Daniel.
On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Christopher Arnold wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Daniel Bond wrote:
reading your answer, you are obviously confusing what I am saying
about freebsd-update with the portsnap program. Also, I also wrote
in my first post
No i'm not confusing them, just trying to follow two subjects at the
same time. Sorry if that is confusing.
that HTTP_PROXY / Caching proxy server does not help me much. This
is because I download a lot of "initial tarball snapshots".. I
would
rarely see "Cache hits" in my proxy log. I guess I could set
something up to fetch nightly via proxy, to keep the data in house,
for when I need it. I don't want to use a PROXY server, I feel this
is attacking the problem at the wrong end.
Ok, lets go again. Either you mirror (maybe by having a squid proxy
and walk the tree) and thats going to me even worse for you. Or you
use a squid proxy to keep stuff you need close to you and share
among
different installations.
Or you setup one or more national squid proxies and configure your
machines manually just like you do with cvsup.
I agree, I am interested to hear the views of the wise ones.
Personally I'm going back to CVSup until freebsd-update and
portsnap
mirrors are in a more distributed or usable state.
At least portsnap started to work for me earlier today. Havn't tried
update yet.
But yes i agree, update and portsnap infrastructure could be done
better.
I have some ideas and will try to write them down in a while.
/Chris
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"[email protected]"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]
"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]
"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
