Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg <karltk@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an alternative portage tree sync method
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:22:35
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an alternative portage tree sync method by Ricardo Correia
1 Ricardo Correia wrote:
2 > Hi,
3 > Please read the following proposal, I think you'll be interested:
4 >
5 >
7 I find this to be a very intriguing idea for several reasons:
9 1) If you're behind a restrictive firewall, you're a lot better off
10 with zsync than webrsync.
12 2) Presumably, the CPU load on the server will be a lot better for
13 zsync scheme than for rsync: the client does _all_ the computation,
14 server only pushes files. I suspect this will make the rsync servers
15 bandwidth bound rather than CPU bound, but more testing is required
16 before we have hard numbers on this.
18 3) You'll download only one file (an .ISO) and you can actually just
19 mount this on /usr/portage (or wherever you want your PORTDIR).
20 If you have (g)cloop installed, it may even be mounted over a
21 compressed loopback. A full ISO of the porttree is ~300MB,
22 compressed it's ~29MB.
24 4) It's easy to add more image formats to the server. If you compress
25 the porttree snapshot into squashfs, the resulting image is
26 ~22MB, and this may be mounted directly, as recent gentoo-dev-sources
27 has squashfs support built-in.
29 5) The zsync program itself only relies on glibc, though it does not
30 support https, socks and other fancy stuff.
33 On the downside, as Portage does not have pluggable rsync (at least not
34 without further patching), you won't be able to do FEATURES="zsync"
35 emerge sync.
38 For interested parties: I am field-testing this on
39 Plain ISOs work now, as do squashfs images.
40 Compressed isos are still untested, as I don't have the cloop kernel
41 module installed.
43 I'll get back with more details in a bit when we're ready for more
44 widespread testing.
47 > If you could reply in the forum, it would be great :)
49 I don't believe in forums;)
51 -- Karl T
53 --
54 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an alternative portage tree sync method Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>