Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:39:36 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem) Message-ID: <43725078.6000303@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> References: <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote: >>If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do >>it. > > Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10 > times the changes? Yes. Each time you run CVSup, it transmits a list of all the files in the tree; if your ports tree is almost up-to-date already, then this "overhead" cost is in fact the largest contributor to the bandwidth used. This problem does not occur with portsnap to any significant extent; updating once an hour uses less than 1% extra bandwidth compared to updating every day. > Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap. Is there any reason in the world > why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of ports > from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap today? The other common reason for being unable to use portsnap is if a user has made their own personal changes to a port (e.g., an added patch). Portsnap will remove such changes the next time the port is updated, while cvs will attempt to merge the modifications. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43725078.6000303>