| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 11:32 AM Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> 1) it is still the most bandwidth economical means of distributing the |
| 4 |
> tree |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Is this true? If I do two syncs 10min apart, I have to imagine that |
| 7 |
less data will get transferred for git. Certianly there will be less |
| 8 |
disk IO. I think the main issue is when does the crossover happen |
| 9 |
because if I sync a year apart git is going to send every file that |
| 10 |
was ever added and then removed from the tree in that time. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Also, do we care about bandwidth when there are mirrors that offer it for free? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 2) we have a large infrastructure of rsync mirrors, which we do not for |
| 15 |
> git. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Do we need them. I've yet to see somebody complain about poor syncing |
| 19 |
performance from github. I imagine we could just use that and a few |
| 20 |
other free mirroring services to distribute the tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
While I appreciate all the donors giving us mirrors/etc, it seems like |
| 23 |
we would be much more resilient if we didn't require them in the first |
| 24 |
place. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives