On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:22PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote:
Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV:
$ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org
_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org.
_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Royce Williams
royce.willi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Guido Falsi m...@madpilot.net wrote:
portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
are more frequently using other servers now.
A few days ago portsnap5
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Guido Falsi m...@madpilot.net wrote:
portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
are more frequently using other servers now.
A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap
simply timed out and tried
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:13:51PM +0200, Guido Falsi thus spake:
On 10/21/10 18:17, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RWrwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsim...@madpilot.net wrote:
I have noticed on the machines I
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:02:47PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:53:24PM +0200, Barbara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
Barbara barbara.xxx1975 at libero.it articulated:
$ date
Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010
# portsnap fetch update
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200
Guido Falsi m...@madpilot.net wrote:
I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards
portsnap5.
I mean, all these machines are always choosing mirror number five.
Some are behind squid proxies and using them for portsnap, so I think
this
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsi m...@madpilot.net wrote:
I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards
portsnap5.
If you define a cache environment variable the random choice is seeded
by
On 10/21/10 18:17, Royce Williams wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:51 AM, RWrwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:31:24 +0200 Guido Falsim...@madpilot.net wrote:
I have noticed on the machines I use/administer a bias towards
portsnap5.
If you define a cache environment
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
Barbara barbara.xxx1...@libero.it articulated:
$ date
Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010
# portsnap fetch update
Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found.
Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed.
Fetching snapshot
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
Barbara barbara.xxx1975 at libero.it articulated:
$ date
Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010
# portsnap fetch update
Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found.
Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed.
Fetching
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:53:24PM +0200, Barbara wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
Barbara barbara.xxx1975 at libero.it articulated:
$ date
Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010
# portsnap fetch update
Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found.
Fetching
Quoth Barbara on Wednesday, 20 October 2010:
My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance.
I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5.
If it's expected, no problem.
Was alter a parapraxis?
--
Sterling (Chip) Camden| sterl...@camdensoftware.com |
On 10/20/10 7:14 PM, Chip Camden wrote:
Quoth Barbara on Wednesday, 20 October 2010:
My only intention was to report that and not complaining about the annoyance.
I just wanted to alter people maintaining #5.
If it's expected, no problem.
Was alter a parapraxis?
I'd imagine
$ date
Wed Oct 20 01:11:10 CEST 2010
# portsnap fetch update
Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 5 mirrors found.
Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap5.FreeBSD.org... failed.
Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap6.FreeBSD.org... done.
___
14 matches
Mail list logo
