[gentoo-user] CVSup vs Gentoo's Rsync

[Ow Mun Heng <Ow.Mun.Heng@wdc.com>]

Anyone knows?? A google search found interesting details on cvsup.
(there's even the purported 50x increase in speed on a 56K
link)http://www.cvsup.org/cvsup6.html

Then I also found a link in one of GWM (Gentoo Weeky News all the way
back in 2002 -
http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20021223-newsletter.xml#doc_chap2_sect4) that states

[snip]
CVSup Under Consideration as Replacement for rsync

There has been some discussion in the Gentoo developer community about
migrating away from Portage's dependency on rsync and instead utilizing
CVSup. Currently used in FreeBSD's ports system, CVSup offers a few
distinct advantages, as well as challenges, over rsync:

      * Local changes will be preserved if you want them to, just like
        anoncvs. Anyone who's ever had their package.mask file
        overwritten by an emerge rsync will appreciate this feature. 
      * CVSup is faster and more efficient than rsync. This means that
        CVSup can improve the efficiency of our Portage mirroring
        system. 
      * CVSup's threaded design allows for file transfer begin almost
        immediately, unlike rsync which must build a complete file list
        first. Surprisingly, CVSup uses the rsync algorithm (which is
        very efficient) internally to synchronize individual files, but
        uses a better approach than rsync when coordinating the updates
        of large numbers of files. 
      * CVSup is written in Modula 3, which means that transitioning to
        CVSup will require some non-trivial steps to ensure that we have
        proper Modula 3 support on all architectures. 
      * CVSup also has the added psychological benefit of making FreeBSD
        users feel more at home. 
[/snip]

Anyone wants to comment??

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 18:07:43 up 4 days, 4:40, 6 users, load average: 1.51, 0.99,
0.76 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list