| 1 |
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:50:13PM +0100, leon j. breedt wrote: |
| 2 |
> hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> call me crazy, but wouldn't this be more efficient: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Much more efficient and convenient seems to be incremental xdelta patches on |
| 9 |
tarred repository. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Delta set file size should be typically nearly less than "Total transferred |
| 12 |
file size" via rsync. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Once you download "official tar.gz" (you have to have identical bit image; or |
| 15 |
tar set - to be more patient to machines with few memory) and later download |
| 16 |
only incremetal deltas. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We could have, for example, hourly patches, six-hourly patches, daily patches, |
| 19 |
weekly patches etc. - so anybody should be able to upgrade from any version to |
| 20 |
latest using, say, up to 10-15 incremental delta sets. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There is another way, how to serve portage tree much faster as is - use |
| 24 |
reiserfs (in tail mode) or tmpfs for tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
This is also good way to download sources over slow lines, if you have |
| 28 |
previous version. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
For simple implementation see example "deltaserver" at: |
| 32 |
http://www.penguin.cz/~utx/ |
| 33 |
(unusable for Gentoo, because it reconstructs byte-by-byte identical .tar, but |
| 34 |
not .tar.gz or .tar.bz2, but it can be solved.) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Typical delta size for standard version update is less than 1/10 of tarball. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- Stanislav Brabec |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives