On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is you here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who
Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
method for fetching Packages files?
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
users, they don't have the (CPU)
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
useful when the files change. Files should never
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
useful when the files change. Files should
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 09.20, Ian Bruce wrote:
Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
method for fetching Packages files?
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to
On Oct 26, Ian Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
method for fetching Packages files? It's the only mechanism I'm aware of
Because it's hard on servers, for a start.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [8782 diFcw3LT7Erlw]
signature.asc
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so
while the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to
100s of users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:20:19AM -0700, Ian Bruce said
Now that gzip has the --rsyncable option, wouldn't it be feasible to
rsync against compressed Packages files rather than having to keep the
uncompressed ones around for this purpose?
You have to explicitly enable this option, which is
Oct 2004 07:10:28 -0700
From: Ian Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: apt-proxy v2 and rsync
I was distressed to read the following in the documentation for the new
apt-proxy:
- rsync is not officially supported.
It can work with rsync and some
11 matches
Mail list logo
