Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:14:11 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap Message-ID: <42F63353.7030707@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <42F60443.2040301@freebsd.org> <20050807.231125.26489231.hrs@allbsd.org> <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> <20050807.100622.54623722.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <42F61960.4020400@freebsd.org> > Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.org> writes: > : very little reason for anyone to be running > : a portsnap mirror unless it's a public mirror, > > Our experience with cvsup would suggest otherwise. Many places with > large numbers or even small numbers of machines run cvsup mirrors that > are private. I expect that universities will want to run mirrors that > they might not want non-students accessing (eg, internal bandwidth is > free, external is expensive). Portsnap != CVSup. In particular, an HTTP proxy which is used by five hundred users running portsnap will use less bandwidth than a portsnap mirror. The "right" solution for nearly all organizations is a caching HTTP proxy. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42F63353.7030707>