Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating

From: Marton Kenyeres (mkenyeres_at_konvergencia.hu)
Date: 10/27/04

  • Next message: Dag-Erling Smørgrav: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating" 
    To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:17:00 +0200

    On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
    > Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> 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
    right`?

    [From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ]

    "The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the
    server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the
    usable bandwidth."

    It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is
    more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but
    makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example,
    from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the
    roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.)

    I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating
    methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over
    symmetric and asymmetric lines.

    Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices
    might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports
    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.
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Dag-Erling Smørgrav: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: How often cvsup the ports?
      ... >>using portsnap, which is much more efficient than ... >>in a week than you would with cvsup in one run. ... > and emails me a list of installed packages which are ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Standard way of updating 6.x ?
      ... I have found several websites with similar but differing ... rebuilding things at the lowest layer ... I am trying to use portsnap, ... faster than cvsup, but the handbook doesn't seem to have portsnap integrated ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Gotta start somewhere ... how many of us are really out there?
      ... are using CVSup rather than portsnap for updating their ports trees. ... Even when I upgrade to 6 I think it unlikely I'll be switching to portsnap for 2 main reasons: ... If you want to count by port tree download, ignoring cvsup, would, I think be a mistake. ... Counting portsnap and cvsup accesses is non-intrusive - i.e. nothing sent from local host - will count systems from any version of FreeBSD, but will never count everything because sites with multiple hosts may easily have local propagation mechanisms. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
      ... I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap ... nearest cvsup mirror is 5 miles away is install fastest_cvsup to find ... Note if your not going to use the local cvs repository method I use ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem)
      ... Each time you run CVSup, it transmits a list of all the files in the ... if your ports tree is almost up-to-date already, ... does not occur with portsnap to any significant extent; ... > why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of ports ...
      (freebsd-questions)