| 1 |
Am 12.11.2011 13:40, schrieb Pandu Poluan: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' |
| 4 |
> server share the distfiles dir via NFS? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing |
| 7 |
> vs HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a |
| 8 |
> trusted network by definition. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Rgds, |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
How exactly had you planned to share distfiles? You didn't want to |
| 14 |
mirror everything from the offical mirrors, did you? I'm not perfectly |
| 15 |
sure how portage handles a mirror that occasionally returns 404 errors |
| 16 |
but I think I've seen it fall back to the official mirrors in that case. |
| 17 |
Anyway, making educated guesses about what should be on your own mirror |
| 18 |
is probably a bit ineffective unless you have a very homogeneous |
| 19 |
environment. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What I think you /should/ have wanted is a proxy specifically configured |
| 22 |
to cache very large files. net-proxy/http-replicator has been made |
| 23 |
specifically for Gentoo distfiles. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
NFS has the advantage that it doesn't duplicate distfiles locally on all |
| 26 |
machines. It is also easier to set up. Disadvantages? I'm unsure how |
| 27 |
portage will handle cases when two machines fetch the same file at the |
| 28 |
same time. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives