| 1 |
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:25:25 +0000 |
| 2 |
Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> What's the pros/cons of mounting portage over NFS Vs http-replicator? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If you only have one architecture and one system type or one system that |
| 9 |
can be a superset of the others, nfs will serve you fine. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If you have multiple architectures, the packages release at different |
| 12 |
times and sometimes different revs. For this http-replicator is a |
| 13 |
better choice. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For example - I run x86, amd64, and power pc. Thus, need a broader |
| 16 |
spectrum of packages. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Or if you run desktops and servers (different sets of software) and don't |
| 19 |
have a common set of USE flags - use say, lighttpd, php, and mysql on the |
| 20 |
server but not on the desktop. Or more likely, use postfix, sasl, tinydns, |
| 21 |
and procmail on the server, but not the desktop (assumes the desktop uses |
| 22 |
LDAP or POP). Then http-replicator would be a better choice. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Bob |
| 25 |
- |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives