Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating

From: Eric Anderson (anderson_at_centtech.com)
Date: 10/27/04

  • Next message: Bryan Fullerton: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating"
    Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:37:17 -0500
    To: Marton Kenyeres <mkenyeres@konvergencia.hu>
    
    

    Marton Kenyeres wrote:
    [..snip..]
    > 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 find the longer I wait, the more time cvsup takes. It isn't that it's
    slow, it's just that portsnap seems faster in this case.

    Has anyone thought about using bittorrent to pass the portsnap binary
    around? That would remove the 'mirror' issue possibly.

    I cvsup in swarms - a couple times daily for about 2-3 days, then when
    my ports are all happy, I don't do it for a couple more weeks.

    I don't think Colin was trying to spread fud (at least I certainly
    didn't take it that way), I think he was just trying to make a point
    that cvsup can be time consuming if you don't update often. However, if
    you DO update often, it IS pretty fast.

    I'm interested to hear what the results are..

    Eric

    -- 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eric Anderson     Sr. Systems Administrator    Centaur Technology
    Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    _______________________________________________
    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: Bryan Fullerton: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating"

    Relevant Pages

    • 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: 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: 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)