Isn't there a kernelland HTTP server? ISTR seeing the option. I don't know anything about it, though.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:10 AM, microcai <micro...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > http://code.google.com/p/bashttpd/ > > run with systemd or xinetd > > > > 于 2011年11月14日 18:05, J. Roeleveld 写道: >> On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only >>> problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a >>> server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another >>> network... >> >> NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. >> If server goes, problems can occur there as well. >> But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for >> instance) >> >>> Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however >>> for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save >>> tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many >>> computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking >>> etc works correctly... >> >> Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared >> distfiles and all downloading the source-files. >> >>> And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own >>> distfiles directories ;) >> >> Big plus, for me :) >> >> -- >> Joost >> >> > > > -- :wq
