Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:03:56 +0100 From: Daniel Bond <db@danielbond.org> To: Christopher Arnold <chris@arnold.se> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-update painfully slow - slower than source code build of world and kernel Message-ID: <C68E4D01-D846-4FE4-B71E-9D7ED2EA55E2@danielbond.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901061731550.1343@localhost> References: <DA7E7739-0631-4B00-8CA8-D8C9E22B2126@danielbond.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901061121530.1996@localhost> <F6385D88-BFAF-47A0-B598-78C971FCBD7C@danielbond.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901061242120.1996@localhost> <08B216B4-79AB-45AB-AB4D-C8CD62196B87@danielbond.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901061731550.1343@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The same could be said about CVSup, one could write a caching cvsup proxy-server, and then we could just get rid of all the other cvsup- servers, except two (like freebsd-update soon will have). The point is, for portsnap and freebsd-update to scale properly, it needs to be opened up to the public, like CVSup is. People running a single server at home, or maybee two, most like won't want to set up a PROXY server, and they would be required to update both servers at the same day for the Proxy server to actually cache something - which many may not want. And there are a lot of people running a few servers, here and there. Sure, a national squid-proxy could work - although, there is no individual proxy setting for portsnap/freebsd-update.. It honors HTTP_PROXY environment variable, which a lot of other tools also use. Some tools might not work via this proxy, especially for local addresses - the administrators of these servers probably don't want all the ports tarballs to go via these, and people could use them for nasty things. So, then we are back to manually setting/specifying the proxy-server, each time one wants to run the commands - which people might forget. (Is this getting complicated enough yet..?) We would basically be creating a whole lot of new potential problems for the users, to solve the problem in question.. I am also interested in learning how the portsnap protocol works, maybe there are potential issues with it, that a second eye might spot, or room for improvement? From what I gather, Colin is a very cleaver guy, so it is not very likely, but still, other people could learn from it. I would like to see these tools as the default recommended tools to use in the future, and that is why I am so worried about this. The point I am trying to make is, or actually the question is: Why is freebsd-update (and portsnap) so secretive? Why can't the average Joe run his own portsnap-mirror at home? What are we afraid of? I don't see any problems with this, except maybe loosing some detail in Colin's nice graphs (which would be the case for proxies too). Cheers, Daniel. On Jan 6, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Christopher Arnold wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Daniel Bond wrote: > >> reading your answer, you are obviously confusing what I am saying >> about freebsd-update with the portsnap program. Also, I also wrote >> in my first post > No i'm not confusing them, just trying to follow two subjects at the > same time. Sorry if that is confusing. > >> that HTTP_PROXY / Caching proxy server does not help me much. This >> is because I download a lot of "initial tarball snapshots".. I >> would rarely see "Cache hits" in my proxy log. I guess I could set >> something up to fetch nightly via proxy, to keep the data in house, >> for when I need it. I don't want to use a PROXY server, I feel this >> is attacking the problem at the wrong end. >> > Ok, lets go again. Either you mirror (maybe by having a squid proxy > and walk the tree) and thats going to me even worse for you. Or you > use a squid proxy to keep stuff you need close to you and share > among different installations. > > Or you setup one or more national squid proxies and configure your > machines manually just like you do with cvsup. > > > >> I agree, I am interested to hear the views of the wise ones. >> Personally I'm going back to CVSup until freebsd-update and >> portsnap mirrors are in a more distributed or usable state. >> > At least portsnap started to work for me earlier today. Havn't tried > update yet. > > But yes i agree, update and portsnap infrastructure could be done > better. > I have some ideas and will try to write them down in a while. > > /Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org > "
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C68E4D01-D846-4FE4-B71E-9D7ED2EA55E2>