[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...

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]