On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 10:19 -0700, Colin Percival wrote: > Paul Mather wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:40 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote: > >> Hm, but I see a quite noticeable speed difference between portsnap1 and > >> portsnap2. The second one is quite a bit faster. > > I'll look into this over the summer. > > > I notice that on 4.x portsnap never finds any mirrors because the grep > > of the output returned by "host -t srv ..." is not appropriate for 4.x's > > version of /usr/bin/host, which produces output different to that of 5.x > > onwards (a BIND8 vs BIND9 issue, I guess). So, maybe because of this, > > all of the portsnaps running on 4.x machines are hitting the same server > > each time instead of randomly choosing a mirror, thereby causing that > > mirror to be a bit more loaded? > > They are hitting the same server, but that server is portsnap2 (which is > also portsnap.daemonology.net, which is the default server for pre-1.0 > versions of portsnap from the ports tree). Given that most systems running > portsnap are FreeBSD 6.0 or 6.1, this doesn't cause much differential > loading. > Not sure if this is offtopic but I always had problems with portsnap and it never worked for me, therefore, I dumped it for cvsup.
Here is what I get: # portsnap fetch Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... none found. Fetching snapshot tag... done. Fetching snapshot metadata... done. Updating from Tue Apr 18 03:16:17 AST 2006 to Sat Apr 22 14:30:08 AST 2006. Fetching 4 metadata patches. done. Applying metadata patches... done. Fetching 4 metadata files... /usr/sbin/portsnap: cannot open 22d2106522d8940cbe1385cae5dd831e247ce85793d0423f367656ed0dfda82d.gz: No such file or directory metadata is corrupt. I'm using 6.1-RC built on Apr 18 but that problem was there even on 6.0-RELEASE
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
