Anthony Towns writes:
> Hrm, thinking about it, I guess zsync probably works by storing the
> state of the gzip table at certain points in the file and doing a
> rolling hash of the contents and recompressing each chunk of the file;
> that'd result in the size of the .gz not necessarily being the
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0500, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > A problem is that zsync needs to teached to deal with deb files (that
> > is, that it needs to unpack the data.tar and use that for the syncs).
[Anthony Towns]
> That seems kinda awkward -- you'd need to start by downloading the
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:51:30 +1000
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Anyway, if it's recompressing like I think, there's no way to get the
> same compressed md5sum -- even if the information could be
> transferred, there's no guarantee the local gzip _can_ produce the
> same output as the remote gzip -- ima
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0500, Michael Vogt wrote:
> My next test was to use only the data.tar.gz of the two
> archives. Zsync will extract the gzip file then and use the tar as the
> base. With that I got:
> 8<
> Read data.tar.gz. Target 34.1%
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:26:59PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the
> >> file size. For the full archive that means under 10G
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 8<
> Read data.tar.gz. Target 34.1% complete.
> used 1056768 local, fetched 938415
> 8<
> The size of the data.tar.gz is 1210514.
So your simple test shows 34% savin
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the
>> file size. For the full archive that means under 10G more data. As
>> comparison adding amd64 needs ~30G. After the scc split ther
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:06:22AM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:15:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > (And yes, we still need a solution to speed up the actual deb file
> > downloads..)
[..]
> if zsync would be taught to handle .deb files as it does .gz files, and
> a meth
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:48:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Zsync checksum files are, depending on block size, about 3% of the
> file size. For the full archive that means under 10G more data. As
> comparison adding amd64 needs ~30G. After the scc split there might be
> enough space on
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Robert Lemmen wrote:
>> if zsync would be taught to handle .deb files as it does .gz files, and
>
> You are talking about freaking lot of metadata here, and about changing some
> key stuff to get --rsyncable compression
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 05:11:00AM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
>>
>> If the .deb files were compressed using the gzip "--rsyncable" option,
>> then fetching them with zsync (or rsync) would be considerably more
>> efficient than straight HTTP transfers.
>
> N
On 10/27/05, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> > if zsync would be taught to handle .deb files as it does .gz files, and
>
> You are talking about freaking lot of metadata here, and about changing some
> key stuff to get --rsyncable
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> if zsync would be taught to handle .deb files as it does .gz files, and
You are talking about freaking lot of metadata here, and about changing some
key stuff to get --rsyncable compression.
I may not understand why most apt metadata in .gz (Packages, S
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:15:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> (And yes, we still need a solution to speed up the actual deb file
> downloads..)
i think zsync is the way to go here. it would cause no load on the
servers as rsync does, and only require a few percent more of mirror
space.
if zsync wo
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:47:21PM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
> As explained, I wish to use rsync (or preferably, zsync) to update the
> local packages list; repeatedly downloading the 3.6MB "Packages.gz" file
> over a 56kb/s link is highly undesirable. I am unable to understand why
> this ambition is
Ian Bruce wrote:
> As explained, I wish to use rsync (or preferably, zsync) to update the
> local packages list; repeatedly downloading the 3.6MB "Packages.gz" file
> over a 56kb/s link is highly undesirable. I am unable to understand why
> this ambition is considered to be unreasonable.
Is there
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:24:36 +0200
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Returning to the original question: Does anybody know why the
> > uncompressed "Packages" file has disappeared from the "unstable"
> > archive?
>
> Because relevant tools do not / should not use that file since years.
On 10454 March 1977, Ian Bruce wrote:
> Returning to the original question: Does anybody know why the
> uncompressed "Packages" file has disappeared from the "unstable"
> archive?
Because relevant tools do not / should not use that file since years. It
was announced *long* ago "to be in a few day
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:12:30 +0200
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the .deb files were compressed using the gzip "--rsyncable"
> > option, then fetching them with zsync (or rsync) would be
> > considerably more efficient than straight HTTP transfers.
>
> No it wouldn't. Remember th
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 05:11:00AM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
>
> If the .deb files were compressed using the gzip "--rsyncable" option,
> then fetching them with zsync (or rsync) would be considerably more
> efficient than straight HTTP transfers.
No it wouldn't. Remember that .deb files are never
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Ian Bruce wrote:
> option was implemented. Perhaps it's thought that more testing is
> required before it can be used for the archives; is there any other
> reason not to use it?
The way gzip --rsyncable works is perfectly safe, it cannot cause data loss
AFAIK. It just makes
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:05:08 +0200
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -- has there been any progress towards providing zsync access to the
> > archives? It would seem that this would result in greatly reduced
> > data traffic on the network servers, without increasing the
> > comp
Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some related questions:
>
> -- what is the purpose of the "Packages.diff/" directory which has
> appeared in the "testing" and "unstable" archives? Is there some piece
> of software which makes use of this for updating the packages lists?
apt-get (experimen
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:32, Ian Bruce wrote:
> It seems that recently, the uncompressed version of the "Packages" file
> has disappeared from the "unstable" archive on the Debian network
> servers and all their mirrors.
>
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/
>
> On the oth
It seems that recently, the uncompressed version of the "Packages" file
has disappeared from the "unstable" archive on the Debian network
servers and all their mirrors.
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/
On the other hand, the uncompressed file is still available for th
25 matches
Mail list logo
