Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2004 12:37, Travis Tilley wrote:
> 
>>Duncan wrote:
>>
>>>..  About 3 and a half minutes.  I just timed it.
>>
>>rm -rf /usr/portage and time it again.
>>
> 
> 
> For people that have slow rsync times, there is the alternative to run 
> emerge-websync. It is maximally a day behind and works well. 
> Unfortunately it needs to download a lot more, but doesn't need to scan 
> the whole local and remote trees.

Actually, it will scan two trees, two *local* ones, on top of some extra I/O
FYI, webrsync does :
1) download a 16M snapshot
2) unpack its 100,000+ files
<rant>latest GWN sees it as a record, let's aim for 250,000 files</rant>
3) run rsync between temp dir and /usr/portage
4) rm 100,000 temp files
5) emerge metadata

emerge-webrsync is not meant to decrease I/O, in fact, it increases local I/O. 
It is meant for people who can't use rsync because it's blocked (or because 
there is no connection at all).


Wkr,
-- 
/  Xavier Neys
\_ Gentoo Documentation Project
/  French & Internationalisation Lead
\  http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en
/\