| 1 |
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 12:45, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> So on every sync, you have to download the entire 260mb ISO file? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I don't think our mirrors would be very happy about that. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Daniel |
| 7 |
> -- |
| 8 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You don't seem to have understanded how zsync works. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Suppose that I, as a user, already have yesterday's portage ISO file. |
| 13 |
And suppose that today, there's about 30 new or updated ebuilds. |
| 14 |
Also suppose that those ebuilds amount to something like 500 KB. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In those conditions, if I update my ISO file today using zsync, I would only |
| 17 |
have to download the zsync file (which would be about 700 KB) and the |
| 18 |
necessary *compressed* ranges of the (compressed) ISO file available on the |
| 19 |
mirror. This would be *less* than 500 KB, because of the compression. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This works because the .zsync file contains a mapping of the uncompressed data |
| 22 |
to the compressed data. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Notice that even if the user doesn't have the ISO file yet, he would only have |
| 25 |
to download about 27 MB. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Personally, I estimate that updates could be faster than a rsync, if not only |
| 28 |
because of the whole disk thrashing. But only through experimentation we |
| 29 |
would be able to measure the difference. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Also notice that zsync still has lots of room for improvements, so I wouldn't |
| 32 |
be surprised to see it beat rsync in terms of time of an update. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I think it's worthwhile to setup an experimental mirror, it sure seems much |
| 35 |
better than doing emerge-webrsync.. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives