Gentoo Archives: gentoo-mirrors

From: Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
To: gentoo-mirrors@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-mirrors] Configuration Request
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:56:02
Message-Id: 20041202015556.GA24663@ols-dell.iic.hokudai.ac.jp
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-mirrors] Configuration Request by Rob Baxter
maillog: 01/12/2004-16:30:40(-0700): Rob Baxter types
> i think the point is that the data that gets cached can and does change > every 30 minutes, so caching doesn't really help.
It does help. If data changes, it is first updated in the cache. New data is served directly out of the cache, while the hard disk is synced in the background. That's unless I am majorly mistaken about how caching works.
> all 5 servers in the rsync.gentoo.org rotation are currently running > rsync out of ram. i think i can safely say they wouldn't be nearly as > fast as they are, running off a hard disk.
Do you have some real numbers? I am not trying to doubt you too much. I am genuinely curious how big the speedup is and if it is worth the effort. All I wanted to point in my post is that the speedup is probably not that great, but I'd really like to see benchmark numbers if someone went to the trouble of doing it.
> besides, ram is cheap
That's pretty relative. $70 for 512MB is not cheap for me. One reason why my poor "server" is still running with 2x512MB *PC133*.
> and has a small footprint (smaller blocks) using > ramdrive, why not use it.
Well, you may be right. I guess I could try serving two trees and do some tests myself. -- *) Georgi Georgiev *) What fools these morals be! *) (* chutz@×××.net (* (* *) +81(90)6266-1163 *) *) -- gentoo-mirrors@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-mirrors] Configuration Request Rob Baxter <burn@××××××.ca>
Re: [gentoo-mirrors] Configuration Request Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>