| 1 |
Op vr 27-06-2003, om 14:23 schreef Eric Sammer: |
| 2 |
> Just to add something to my last email about portage and database / |
| 3 |
> directory services... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> While talking to my wife this morning (a sysadmin and security |
| 6 |
> professional and fellow gentoo user) about this situation, we realized |
| 7 |
> something else about portage in openldap. This would (or could, |
| 8 |
> depending on implementation) severely limit the rsync bottle neck by |
| 9 |
> allowing for a hierarchy of directory servers to be replicated from by |
| 10 |
> users. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I REALLY like this idea.. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> With clever use of referals and replication, you could |
| 15 |
> effectively remove the rsync issues of bandwidth and the |
| 16 |
> "stop-syncing-so-often-it's-rude" problem. Updates to portage would be |
| 17 |
> propagated down the line when commited moving a smaller (but steady) |
| 18 |
> stream of traffic rather than unpredictable bursts (note: that's an |
| 19 |
> assumption). This would eliminate the need for 'emerge sync' (in theory). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Again, this is all very academic as the data to back up these ideas is |
| 22 |
> out of the public eye (thankfully). Maybe just food for thought... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Thanks to all devs for all the great work. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Yup, can't say that enough too ;)... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rogi |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives