| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 05:05:15AM -0500 or thereabouts, bdharring wrote: |
| 2 |
> >Distfile mirrors would be required to carry the full /distfiles |
| 3 |
> >directory. |
| 4 |
> What space savings are avoided by not carrying the portage tree? Last |
| 5 |
> I had checked, I believe the tree was roughly in the range of 100mbs or |
| 6 |
> so. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The portage tree is carried on a separate system of mirrors. We call them |
| 9 |
our portage mirrors or rsync mirrors. Source mirrors carry the tarballs |
| 10 |
and ISOs necessary to build things found in the Portage tree, as well as |
| 11 |
installation CDs, GRP packages, etc. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This discussion only revolves around source mirrors, which current hold the |
| 14 |
following directories: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
/releases |
| 17 |
/experimental |
| 18 |
/snapshots |
| 19 |
/distfiles |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Under the current proposal, "full" mirrors would carry all four directories |
| 22 |
while distfile mirrors would only carry the last two directories. The |
| 23 |
delta between the two in terms of hard drive space required is (roughly) |
| 24 |
15GB. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
--kurt |
Archives