On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Colin Percival <[email protected]> writes: > > CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. > > if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right. Does using CVSup over an asymmetric link qualify as `not using it=20 right`? [From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ] "The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the=20 server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the=20 usable bandwidth." It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is=20 more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but=20 makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example,=20 from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the=20 roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.) I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating=20 methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over=20 symmetric and asymmetric lines. Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices=20 might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports=20 notifies me that something on my watchlist has changed). > > I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no > need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it. I agree with that. > > DES m. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"