| 1 |
Squid doesn't work properly to cache the updates without hacking it |
| 2 |
(unless MS have made some squid friendly changes in version 5 -- I'm not |
| 3 |
holding my breath)... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
My rudimentary understanding is the updates send unique queries, |
| 6 |
including per-machine unique data as part of the request which prevents |
| 7 |
most of the data being cached, even if the updates data is identical. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Refer to: http://www.glob.com.au/windowsupdate_cache/ for more info. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Microsoft SUS is probably the most reliable automated solution I'm aware |
| 12 |
of (if you have control of the machines you are trying to update). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Good luck! |
| 15 |
Ben. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ochal Christophe wrote: |
| 19 |
> Ben Koren schreef: |
| 20 |
>> I don't have a script on hand to show you as an example, but I had a |
| 21 |
>> small script for doing the windows updates. Basically, I went through |
| 22 |
>> and downloaded all of the updates manually (the kb****** executables |
| 23 |
>> from MS). Then I threw them all in a a folder on a flash drive and had a |
| 24 |
>> small script execute them one by one - so for each client's machine I |
| 25 |
>> would stick in my flash drive and run the update script. Obviously, new |
| 26 |
>> KB's are bound to come out, so I usually ran Windows Update after that, |
| 27 |
>> but it still saved a load on bandwidht. I don't have a solution for the |
| 28 |
>> Mac updates. Hope this helps! |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That's one possibility, but rather clumsy, and i'd have to rely on my |
| 31 |
> collegue's to help keep the local repository on the media up to date, |
| 32 |
> knowing some of my collegue's, i don't see that happen ;) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Squid sofar seems the best route to follow |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives