| 1 |
On Nov 12, 2011 8:16 PM, "YoYo Siska" <yoyo@××××××.sk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Nov 12, 2011 7:00 PM, "Mick" <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I've been using boa just for this purpose for years: |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > * www-servers/boa |
| 9 |
> > > Available versions: |
| 10 |
> > > ~ 0.94.14_rc21 "~x86 ~sparc ~mips ~ppc ~amd64" |
| 11 |
[doc] |
| 12 |
> > > Homepage: http://www.boa.org/ |
| 13 |
> > > Description: A very small and very fast http daemon. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > It can be easily locked down for internet facing roles. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > I've also used thttpd (you can throttle its bandwidth if that's |
| 18 |
important |
| 19 |
> > in |
| 20 |
> > > your network), but it's probably more than required for this purpose: |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > * www-servers/thttpd |
| 23 |
> > > Available versions: |
| 24 |
> > > 2.25b-r7 "amd64 ~hppa ~mips ppc sparc x86 |
| 25 |
> > ~x86-fbsd" [static] |
| 26 |
> > > ~ 2.25b-r8 "~amd64 ~hppa ~mips ~ppc ~sparc ~x86 |
| 27 |
> > ~x86-fbsd" |
| 28 |
> > > [static] |
| 29 |
> > > Homepage: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ |
| 30 |
> > > Description: Small and fast multiplexing webserver. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Thanks for all the input! |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' |
| 35 |
> > server share the distfiles dir via NFS? |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of |
| 38 |
NFS-sharing vs |
| 39 |
> > HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a |
| 40 |
trusted |
| 41 |
> > network by definition. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only |
| 44 |
> problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a |
| 45 |
> server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another |
| 46 |
> network... |
| 47 |
> Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however |
| 48 |
> for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save |
| 49 |
> tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many |
| 50 |
> computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking |
| 51 |
> etc works correctly... |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own |
| 54 |
> distfiles directories ;) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Yes, that would be beneficial. But if NFS is as finicky as that, what's a |
| 57 |
better way to share directories? |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Rgds, |
Archives