Date: 22 Mar 1996 21:20:12 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG" <freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG>, "hackers@FreeBSD.ORG" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Peter Wemm" <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> Subject: Re(2): new sup server Message-ID: <n1384592440.78725@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote: > Am I the only one that thinks that using sup to feed the sup mirrors is > *extemely* prone to error? [snip] > CTM would be *far* better to feed the mirrors with, if only it preserved the > timestamps of the files. (phk: hint hint! :-) > > (note: I'm only suggesting the possibility of geting the data to the mirrors > via ctm, not suggesting that the mirrors stop providing sup access once > they've got the data.. big difference..) >Unfortunately, the lack of timestamp preservation pretty much rules out ctm if it's for a mirrored sup-server which depends on the timestamps. Well, I totally agree. And I have a suggestion that would be very easy to implement. All we need to do is add a directive to ctm to set the timestamps to a FIXED time for that update. That way ALL the sup mirrors, and anyone else who gets the ctm update, would have the same time for each file, namely the timestamp associated with the last ctm update of that file. This method of update would also eliminate the problem of staggering access. All mirrors would get updated about the same time, whether it was ten minutes or ten hours after the run started on the master host. It would also have the additional advantage that I could use sup to bring my personal tree up-to-date and immediately switch to ctm to continue future updates.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n1384592440.78725>