| 1 |
i think the point is that the data that gets cached can and does change every 30 minutes, so caching |
| 2 |
doesn't really help. all 5 servers in the rsync.gentoo.org rotation are currently running rsync out |
| 3 |
of ram. i think i can safely say they wouldn't be nearly as fast as they are, running off a hard |
| 4 |
disk. besides, ram is cheap and has a small footprint (smaller blocks) using ramdrive, why not use it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
rob |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 9 |
> maillog: 01/12/2004-14:06:11(-0700): Rob Baxter types |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>OS: gentoo of course. 2.6 kernel (gentoo-dev-sources) |
| 12 |
>>Filesystem: reiserfs. in my experience, ext3 may be the norm, but it is |
| 13 |
>>damned slow. |
| 14 |
>>I highly recommend vsftpd if you're running an ftp mirror, it's very secure |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>>>:] |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>>Besides the obvious, it is also extremely fast and can take a beating. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>>There are a few handy config files here: |
| 21 |
>>http://criticaldamage.com/forum/ - Linux/Config Share |
| 22 |
>>the most useful for you would probably be the rsync server run from a |
| 23 |
>>ramdrive, which is so much faster than disk it's not funny and the the |
| 24 |
>>vsftpd config if you choose to use it. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Naaah, ramdrive. The whole thing is constantly cached anyway if you have |
| 28 |
> enough RAM (1GB does the job in my case). It of course depends on how |
| 29 |
> busy your rsync server is, but if it's not -- why do you care about |
| 30 |
> speed? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-mirrors@g.o mailing list |
Archives