From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1E91381F3 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A145E08A1; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:01:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5801CE086D; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (76.Red-2-137-68.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.68.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F27AB33E1C2; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1374426099.20076.4.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About suggesting to create a separate partition for portage tree in handbook From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: infra-bugs@gentoo.org Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:01:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: <51EBF453.7030500@gentoo.org> References: <20337.28987.736877.961717@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120327154239.GA17394@gentoo.org> <1332870540.18466.9.camel@belkin4> <20120327180158.GA1468@siphos.be> <1332873243.11827.15.camel@rook> <20120327200532.GA15040@thinkpad.rutgers.edu> <1333094778.1407.9.camel@belkin4> <20120331084402.GA23183@gentoo.org> <1333200867.29219.2.camel@belkin4> <4F77421A.9030306@gentoo.org> <20120331232508.GA18617@waltdnes.org> <4F77A269.1070203@gentoo.org> <1374406937.23081.58.camel@localhost> <51EBEF8E.4090603@gentoo.org> <51EBF453.7030500@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 7c94102f-7995-4b79-b0a1-132badbb150b X-Archives-Hash: 7733ebfbd5a0fa6f8506fe3f14144fd4 El dom, 21-07-2013 a las 16:46 +0200, justin escribió: > On 7/21/13 4:26 PM, Michael Weber wrote: > > On 07/21/2013 01:42 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >> Would be possible to generate and provide squashed files at the > >> same time tarballs with portage tree snapshots are generated? > >> mksquashfs can take a lot of resources depending on the machine, > >> but providing the squashed images would still benefit people > >> allowing them to download and mount them > > > > I've establish a cron job on my server to generate gzip and xz > > squashed snapshots. I sync distfiles from utwente at 6:05 and generate > > the squashfs at 6:35 after verifying the gpg signatures. > > There's a 10,5h lag between snapshots and squashfs files - we could > > improve if I'm allowed to sync against master rsync/dinstfiles. > > > > [1] http://lore.xmw.de/gentoo/genberry/snapshots/ > > > > > > I am creating them as well. Perhaps we can bundle the effort. > > What I also found out that using zsync is quite efficient with squashfs > images. I normally don't sync more then 20-30% of the image. > > Justin > Maybe infra could be contacted to try to share the effort (and also offer the snapshot in a bit more "official" way, I mean, similar to tarballs with snapshots)