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 1OgNcZ-00023x-8S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:57:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36756E0817; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150A5E0817 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:57:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29611B4070 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:57:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.244 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.355, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TYdVpNj9OpG for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:57:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0201B4020 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 19:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OgNbm-0007lC-VL for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:57:06 +0200 Received: from 186-24-20-5.genericrev.telcel.net.ve ([186.24.20.5]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:57:06 +0200 Received: from sebasmagri by 186-24-20-5.genericrev.telcel.net.ve with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:57:06 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: sebasmagri@gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Sebasti=C3=A1n_Ram=C3=ADrez_Magr?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=AD?=) Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Is a git based tree going to save me bandwidth and time? Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:27:46 -0430 Message-ID: <874ofblb9h.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87pqy02spd.fsf@gmail.com> <20100803211122.0aa20ffb@mosly> 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=utf-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 186-24-20-5.genericrev.telcel.net.ve User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2X5ilNq9SVKXPsZADzlBZoqmpmk= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 88b913b3-22a9-4e5b-962c-57f5b55b8dcc X-Archives-Hash: cac72c4880ad274ffa466cef4e815d9f Sergei Trofimovich writes: > Hi Sebasti=C3=A1n, > >> I've been thinking about switching from a rsync based tree to a git >> based one cloning [0]. The main reasons because I would do that is in >> order to save bandwidth (I've a slow GSM connection in my netbook and >> I sync two other gentoo boxes from the first one) and maybe time. > > When I had awfully slow internet I used to use app-portage/emerge-delta= -webrsync. > emerge-delta-webrsync recreates portage tarball from previous state and= patches. > It usually takes about 300KB (one patch size) per day. I've been using delta-webrsync to update the _main node_ too. I think git can't really beat delta-webrsync... Will try to do some bandwith benchmarks and post the results asap...