From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2OEMXq0015531 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:22:35 GMT Received: from vintereik.ii.uib.no ([129.177.16.237]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DET4w-0000FS-NX for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:12:54 +0000 Received: from 217-188-250.adsl.tele2.no ([193.217.188.250]:45146 helo=[192.168.2.49]) by vintereik.ii.uib.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.43) id 1DET4w-0001o8-Eq for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:12:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4242CA97.10904@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:11:35 +0100 From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg Organization: Gentoo Foundation User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050106) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an alternative portage tree sync method References: <200503220715.02669.gentoo-dev@wizy.org> In-Reply-To: <200503220715.02669.gentoo-dev@wizy.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7018ed93-5275-4c47-bdae-3bbe61c33485 X-Archives-Hash: 96b07f62291f2161915c72668afb178e Ricardo Correia wrote: > Hi, > Please read the following proposal, I think you'll be interested: > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-2218914.html I find this to be a very intriguing idea for several reasons: 1) If you're behind a restrictive firewall, you're a lot better off with zsync than webrsync. 2) Presumably, the CPU load on the server will be a lot better for zsync scheme than for rsync: the client does _all_ the computation, server only pushes files. I suspect this will make the rsync servers bandwidth bound rather than CPU bound, but more testing is required before we have hard numbers on this. 3) You'll download only one file (an .ISO) and you can actually just mount this on /usr/portage (or wherever you want your PORTDIR). If you have (g)cloop installed, it may even be mounted over a compressed loopback. A full ISO of the porttree is ~300MB, compressed it's ~29MB. 4) It's easy to add more image formats to the server. If you compress the porttree snapshot into squashfs, the resulting image is ~22MB, and this may be mounted directly, as recent gentoo-dev-sources has squashfs support built-in. 5) The zsync program itself only relies on glibc, though it does not support https, socks and other fancy stuff. On the downside, as Portage does not have pluggable rsync (at least not without further patching), you won't be able to do FEATURES="zsync" emerge sync. For interested parties: I am field-testing this on gentooexperimental.org. Plain ISOs work now, as do squashfs images. Compressed isos are still untested, as I don't have the cloop kernel module installed. I'll get back with more details in a bit when we're ready for more widespread testing. > If you could reply in the forum, it would be great :) I don't believe in forums;) -- Karl T -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list