| 1 |
On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:34:16 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Hemmann, Volker Armin" <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Dienstag, 22. Mai 2007, burlingk@×××××××××.mil wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Ok, Here goes... |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > How large is the package archive for gentoo, assuming a full copy |
| 9 |
> > of the portage tree, and all of the source tarballs in the |
| 10 |
> > distfiles directory of the average server? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Bigger than you want to download, that 's almost guaranteed. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > I know this would basically be equivelent to making a local mirror |
| 15 |
> > of the distrservers, and I would have to make sure that my portage |
| 16 |
> > tree matches up to the files actually on the hard drive. ^^ What |
| 17 |
> > other concerns would I need to look at at this point. :P |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> you will waste a lot of bandwidth and diskspace. The mirror might |
| 20 |
> hate you for it. You will have lots and lots of packages like |
| 21 |
> packageX.1.1, packageX.1.1.0, packageX.1.1.1.... |
| 22 |
Not to mention you will spend much longer waiting for everything to |
| 23 |
download then you'd have to wait for everything do download on demand. |
| 24 |
It would probably be more desirable for you to keep a network-shared |
| 25 |
distfiles than mirror the servers. Then there's the age-old 'static |
| 26 |
hosts file' problem - just like the giant host file describing everyone |
| 27 |
took longer to transfer than to become outdated back in the glorious |
| 28 |
days of UNIX, it will also probably take longer to dowload all |
| 29 |
distfiles ever than it will for those distfiles to become outdated. In |
| 30 |
conclusion, I think this is a rather silly idea. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives