On Nov 12, 2011 8:20 PM, "Florian Philipp" <li...@binarywings.net> wrote: > > Am 12.11.2011 13:40, schrieb Pandu Poluan: > > > > 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. > > > > Rgds, > > > > How exactly had you planned to share distfiles? You didn't want to > mirror everything from the offical mirrors, did you? I'm not perfectly > sure how portage handles a mirror that occasionally returns 404 errors > but I think I've seen it fall back to the official mirrors in that case.
Yes, portage (at least, 2.2) automatically use the next mirror in the list. > Anyway, making educated guesses about what should be on your own mirror > is probably a bit ineffective unless you have a very homogeneous > environment. > > What I think you /should/ have wanted is a proxy specifically configured > to cache very large files. net-proxy/http-replicator has been made > specifically for Gentoo distfiles. > I had planned on having a script peruse the log file, looking for which box got a 404, and 1 hour later try to move the file using scp from that box into the common local subrepo. But http-replicator sounds mighty better :-) > NFS has the advantage that it doesn't duplicate distfiles locally on all > machines. It is also easier to set up. Disadvantages? I'm unsure how > portage will handle cases when two machines fetch the same file at the > same time. I can always stagger the time my boxes fetch the distfiles. That should prevent locking problems. Rgds,
