gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good


From: Miles Bader
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good
Date: 25 Sep 2003 10:44:26 +0900

Robert Anderson <address@hidden> writes:
> > When I first started using arch, I made a bunch of local mirrors,
> > but I've since deleted them all, because in fact keeping them
> > updated &c was more annoying than whatever network delay there was.
> 
> Doesn't cron solve that problem?

Not particularly well, no.  It's not just that I'm on a (so slow, both
transfer-rate- and connect-time-wise) modem link and don't have
flat-rate call charging, it's also that it just hasn't proved a
convenient way to work.

I typically update from Tom's sources after reading an email message
saying `just added feature X,' so the long latency of a cron-updated
mirror is a burden (usually what would happen is, I'd do an update, see
nothing changed, be puzzled for a split-second, and then go "oh yeah"
and update my local mirror and try again).  It also turned out that the
actual amount of data transfer was _more_ with the mirror than with a
direct connection, because I typically only do a few operations; with a
mirror, I either had to remember to use a very specific limit for the
mirroring command (and worry about what it should be -- it depends on
what changed), but the direct connection basically transfers exactly
what I need.

I think mirrors (local and otherwise) are a useful part of tla's big-
ad-hoc-bag-of-caching-methods, but they're nowhere near the universal
solution that some people seem to be implying they are...

-Miles
-- 
We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
-Oscar Wilde




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]