On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 17:01 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:46:18PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 04:57:06PM -0500, Jacob S wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:37:33 -0400 > > > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:09:22PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > > > > Now that I'll be upgrading my lan's server to sarge, I plan also > > > > > to install apt-cacher on it, so my other machines won't have to do > > > > > as much long-haul net traffic. > > > > > > > > > > Can I start the woody->sarge upgrade by updating, first, > > > > > aptitude and perl (that seems to be conventional wisdom) > > > > > then installing sarge's apt-cacher, and then pointing > > > > > the sources.list to apt-cacher running on the very machine > > > > > that is being upgraded to sarge? > > > > > > > > > > In the future, when further updates take place, will apt-cacher > > > > > know how to update itself while it's being used to download and > > > > > cache its replacement? > > > > > > > > Since you are serving machines on a network, you really want > > > > apt-proxy. > > > > > > Apt-cacher serves the same purpose as apt-proxy and works just as well, > > > in my experience. I switched to it before apt-proxy v2 hit Sarge and > > > found it to be better than apt-proxy v1 and it would start streaming the > > > file faster (helping to avoid timeouts that I had problems with in > > > apt-proxy). > > > > > > Since you stated that apt-proxy is better, do you have some evidence or > > > a reason for your statement, or is it just preference? > > > > > > HTH, > > > Jacob > > > > I'd > > very much like to know this too. What are the relative merits of > > apt-proxy and apt-cacher. I hadn't realized there were two such > > programs. > > > > --hendrik > > > > I have used both apt-proxy and apt-cacher. Both work, but apt-cacher > is much simpler and easier, and when I last looked apt-proxy was not > really part of Sarge. > > OTOH, I think apt-proxy handles synonyms for distributions better than > apt-cacher. In apt-cacher, there is a problem with switching from etch > to testing, or testing to etch. Apt-cacher seems not to preserve the > information that allows the actual apt-get instance on a host to > recognize that these are merely synonyms for the same thing. As a > consequence, if you do such a switch, you get to download the same stuff > a second time. But how often do you do that? No more than once, if > you are using apt-cacher ;-). > > Apt-cacher seems to me to be a tiny, and beautifully simple hack, that > solves the problem. It works for me. > > JM$.02. > > -- > Paul E Condon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I to used both apt-proxy and apt-cacher and prefer apt-cacher as I had a weird timeout delay on apt-proxy and it was'nt included within sarge (when I started looking at theses solutions) apt-cacher works fanastic though, I just reinstalled my server and used the old *deb's apt-cacher had stored, didn't have to download a thing, saved alot of bandwidth. I don't know why someone said apt-cacher doesn't store the packages.gz as my setup (and its a new setup) stores the *.gz files fine. Also my machine isn't internet facing it's an internel server (behind a firewall) so i've never come upto problems with routering of ports. Another vote for apt-cacher here -- +---------------------------------------------------------+ | Glyn Tebbutt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |--------------' http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d3c3it | | gpg-key: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/d3c3it/d3c3it.gpg | | Lisa, if we conserve the environmentalist win | | -Homer Simpson | +---------------------------------------------------------+
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
