Vincent Stemen wrote:
*snip*
Unless I am overlooking something obvious,
It is not likely so many projects would be using cvsup for as long as
they have if the rsync advantage was that great, or that simple [1].
Have you:
A) compared the loads and bandwidth as well as the time on BOTH end
machines - host as well as client?
B) tested for the 'more common' case where cvsup/csup are applied to
rather more sparse pulls of just a fraction of older, larger
repositories (older *BSD's) - and by more users simultaneously?
Unless I am wrong, cvsup/csup places more of the load of determining
what to pull on the client, less on the source server.
> I think I am going to stick
with updating our repository via rsync :-).
It may be the right answer for now, and for what you are doing.
It may be less so for general end-user use - or even your own if/as/when
mirror hosts are under heavier load.
Most older mirror hosts throttle each connection as well as limit the
maximum number permitted simultaneously. The one you are using presently
seems not to do so.
The key is to include measurement of host and bandwidth as well as
client. TANSTAAFL.
Bill
[1][ subversion, mercurial, et al alternatives are a different type of
issue.
