Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)?

[Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1729 bytes --]

On Nov 12, 2011 8:20 PM, "Florian Philipp" <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
>
> Am 12.11.2011 13:40, schrieb Pandu Poluan:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
>
> How exactly had you planned to share distfiles? You didn't want to
> mirror everything from the offical mirrors, did you? I'm not perfectly
> sure how portage handles a mirror that occasionally returns 404 errors
> but I think I've seen it fall back to the official mirrors in that case.

Yes, portage (at least, 2.2) automatically use the next mirror in the list.

> Anyway, making educated guesses about what should be on your own mirror
> is probably a bit ineffective unless you have a very homogeneous
> environment.
>
> What I think you /should/ have wanted is a proxy specifically configured
> to cache very large files. net-proxy/http-replicator has been made
> specifically for Gentoo distfiles.
>

I had planned on having a script peruse the log file, looking for which box
got a 404, and 1 hour later try to move the file using scp from that box
into the common local subrepo.

But http-replicator sounds mighty better :-)

> NFS has the advantage that it doesn't duplicate distfiles locally on all
> machines. It is also easier to set up. Disadvantages? I'm unsure how
> portage will handle cases when two machines fetch the same file at the
> same time.

I can always stagger the time my boxes fetch the distfiles. That should
prevent locking problems.

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2105 bytes --]