On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 04:49:37AM -0600, jared r r spiegel wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 04:45:11PM -0700, andrew fresh wrote:
> > We have set up an site from which you can get OpenBSD Torrents.
> >
> > The torrents are generated automatically on a server that is
> > rsynced to ftp3.usa.openbsd.org every 4 hours.
>
> that's cool, but would it make sense to use > 4h?
Maybe, I wasn't sure, and it seems to get a fair number of new snapshots
whenever it syncs, so it seems to be a workable amount of time. I will look
into changing timing of updates as time goes on. The reason I chose 4 hours is
that seemed to be what most of the CVS mirrors chose as a sync time and I
didn't have any other gauges.
> when the contents of a specific $arch directory changes,
> does that render out a new .torrent file and update the
> link in the -current section on the www; or does it just
> overwrite the same name of the torrent?
>
> if it is the latter, and you're seeding the torrent for
> may 12th i386 -current; and then the rsync updates that
> dir and a new .torrent is made, and then i d/l the new
> one and join it, do we collide or do we just not see
> each other (like, the torrent in the tracker is by
> hash of contents or something?)
When the contents of a dir change, it generates a new torrent (that is the date
part of the filename), that means the old torrent is out of date, however, on
the torrent clients I have tested, downloading the new torrent will not start
your download over, it will just download the changed pieces. However, as far
as the tracker goes, it doesn't actually care about the filename, it just cares
about the info hash, which is does change, and what actually renders the old
torrent out of date.
I am hoping if I have time, to write up a script that is available for download
that will watch the RSS feed for new torrents that you want, check what you
have, remove the old one and download the new one. I don't know how that will
screw with different torrent clients though.
> can i suggest that the torrents only have the subdir
> instead of OpenBSD/subdir?
I will definately consider this, I guess I just wasn't sure what the best
layout for them was, and during my testing, doing it with OpenBSD/subdir caused
all of the files to end up in the OpenBSD dir as they appear on the FTP server.
l8rZ,
--
andrew - ICQ# 253198 - JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proud member: http://www.mad-techies.org
BOFH excuse of the day: not enough memory, go get system upgrade
