From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RPDOD-0007kA-Ec for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:12:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9E0021C171; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ksp.sk (element.ksp.sk [158.195.16.154]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575E21C030 for ; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 13:11:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ksp.sk (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 9779D4C070; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:11:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:11:53 +0100 From: YoYo Siska To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)? Message-ID: <20111112131152.GA18475@ksp.sk> References: <4EBE38F3.2000005@binarywings.net> <201111121155.41045.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-YoYo: 47 X-Exotic-Header-Data: 47/2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 3086628b-3a18-4848-a1ee-36d4adc1126e X-Archives-Hash: 4d43822817f1b4fee838f7d284612fec On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Nov 12, 2011 7:00 PM, "Mick" wrote: > > > > I've been using boa just for this purpose for years: > > > > * www-servers/boa > > Available versions: > > ~ 0.94.14_rc21 "~x86 ~sparc ~mips ~ppc ~amd64" [doc] > > Homepage: http://www.boa.org/ > > Description: A very small and very fast http daemon. > > > > It can be easily locked down for internet facing roles. > > > > I've also used thttpd (you can throttle its bandwidth if that's important > in > > your network), but it's probably more than required for this purpose: > > > > * www-servers/thttpd > > Available versions: > > 2.25b-r7 "amd64 ~hppa ~mips ppc sparc x86 > ~x86-fbsd" [static] > > ~ 2.25b-r8 "~amd64 ~hppa ~mips ~ppc ~sparc ~x86 > ~x86-fbsd" > > [static] > > Homepage: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/ > > Description: Small and fast multiplexing webserver. > > Thanks for all the input! > > During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' > server share the distfiles dir via NFS? > > So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs > HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted > network by definition. NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another network... Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking etc works correctly... And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own distfiles directories ;) yoyo