On Saturday 12 Nov 2011 12:40:08 Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Nov 12, 2011 7:00 PM, "Mick" <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been using boa just for this purpose for years: > > > > * www-servers/boa > > > > Available versions: > > ~ 0.94.14_rc21 "~x86 ~sparc ~mips ~ppc ~amd64" [doc] > > > > Homepage: http://www.boa.org/ > > Description: A very small and very fast http daemon. > > > > It can be easily locked down for internet facing roles. > > > > I've also used thttpd (you can throttle its bandwidth if that's important > > in > > > your network), but it's probably more than required for this purpose: > > > > * www-servers/thttpd > > > > Available versions: > > 2.25b-r7 "amd64 ~hppa ~mips ppc sparc x86 > > ~x86-fbsd" [static] > > > ~ 2.25b-r8 "~amd64 ~hppa ~mips ~ppc ~sparc ~x86 > > ~x86-fbsd" > > > [static] > > > > Homepage: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ > > Description: Small and fast multiplexing webserver. > > Thanks for all the input! > > During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' > server share the distfiles dir via NFS? > > So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs > HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted > network by definition.
HTTP is not really 'sharing'. It is just 'copying'. Clients download the distfiles from the home server to minimise load on the gentoo mirrors. Following the download a client machine will have a local copy of said distfile in the client://usr/distfile. With NFS there is only one copy of the file, on the server, shared by other clients in the LAN. In my case the server is not always on, so NFS would not be appropriate. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
