| 1 |
Bob Sanders wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:25:25 +0000 |
| 4 |
>Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>>What's the pros/cons of mounting portage over NFS Vs http-replicator? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>If you only have one architecture and one system type or one system that |
| 14 |
>can be a superset of the others, nfs will serve you fine. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>If you have multiple architectures, the packages release at different |
| 17 |
>times and sometimes different revs. For this http-replicator is a |
| 18 |
>better choice. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>For example - I run x86, amd64, and power pc. Thus, need a broader |
| 21 |
>spectrum of packages. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>Or if you run desktops and servers (different sets of software) and don't |
| 24 |
>have a common set of USE flags - use say, lighttpd, php, and mysql on the |
| 25 |
>server but not on the desktop. Or more likely, use postfix, sasl, tinydns, |
| 26 |
>and procmail on the server, but not the desktop (assumes the desktop uses |
| 27 |
>LDAP or POP). Then http-replicator would be a better choice. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>Bob |
| 30 |
>- |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Could a person use NFS for the distfles then use rsync for the snapshot |
| 35 |
or sync part?? I have used the rsync before and it works fine, |
| 36 |
especially when I was on a 26K dial-up which sucked. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Dale |
| 39 |
:-) :-) |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives