[Top][All Lists]
[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
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Alexander Deruwe, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/24
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24