>> But why at the end of http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html :
>> # Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar
>> 2002.
>> os.system('apt-get update')
well, it seems for me this just starts apt-get getting everything all
over again, http_proxy or not.
>> Doing apt-get update just seems to start downloading the Packages.gz
>> even though we just rsynced Packages.
Tim> It could easily be a bug.
Radim> It writes HIT! message there and skip this file, because it is
Radim> up-to-date by rsync.
Next time I will try with http_proxy unset, because I rec
From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It seems the simplest solution is to just use
>http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html
>But why does he do at the bottom
>
># Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar 2002.
>os.system('apt-get update')
># Used to hav
It seems the simplest solution is to just use
http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html
But why does he do at the bottom
# Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar 2002.
os.system('apt-get update')
# Used to have a call to apt-cache gencaches here, but I th
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:17:37PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> get the rgzip package into debian. This patch is 100% stable (read
> it, it is short). The only problem with it is it can only be used in
> 99% of situations, so to avoid unexpected bugs it probably should be
> off by default (e.g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 17:35, you wrote:
> Is there a link to just the changelog so I can see if they added this
> before I spend the modem time downloading? http://packages.debian.org
> doesn't seem to have links to changelogs, not are they in separ
On 13 Apr 2002, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 10:19:27PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > The big problem with rproxy is it's implemented in perl (perl: crypto for
There might be some other unrelated program called rproxy that's in
Perl, but the one I wrote certain
> > http://rsync.samba.org/rsync-and-debian/
> >
> > I'd appreciate comments.
>
This is certainly a very informative page. I'd appreciate if the CPU
load problem could be solved somehow.
IMO the versioning patch from Paul Russell is not the right approach
since this is Debian specific and has
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 01:47, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also, in section 3.15, you say, "Fetching a series of deltas which
> > update the same area is less efficient than calculating the deltas
> > directly." This is true, but by my
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:28:01PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> Why did you think that?
>
> rproxy addresses a rather different problem to rsync: for example, it
> transfers only one file at a time, not whole directories. No, rproxy
> does not have a magic way to do the delta computation in zero t
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 10:19:27PM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> The big problem with rproxy is it's implemented in perl (perl: crypto for
Are we talking about the same code here?
[502] [snoopy:unstable:bam] ~ >ldd /usr/sbin/rproxy
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001e000)
/lib/l
> > 3.1 Compressed files cannot be differenced
>
> I recall seeing some work done to determine how much savings you could
> expect if you used xdeltas of the uncompressed data. This would be the
> best result you could expect from gzip --rsyncable. I recall the numbers
> were disapointing, it was
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 06:19:07PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> What I'd really like is to have access to one of these machines and be
> able to attach debuggers to rsync and see what it's doing. (In this case,
> that would mean being able to ssh in as 'nobody', or something
> equivalent.) I real
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:28:01PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2002, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think some more details is required regarding rproxy.
[...]
> > AFAIK, it solves all the problems regarding server load discussed in
> > rsync, doesn't it???
>
> Why did you
On 11 Apr 2002, Robert Tiberius Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all your hard work on rsync. I think it is a great tool.
> I'm especially excited to hear it is used in Intermezzo. I like your
> rsync/debian web page.
I'm glad you like them.[0]
> I feel you aren't fair to diff
On 12 Apr 2002, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've changed my opinion on this since we last talked, partly because
> of taking over rsync itself,
... what I meant, but people other than jgg probably didn't know, is
that I was looking at installing rproxy and I'd now rather fix rsync.
On 12 Apr 2002, Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nobody8835 25.7 0.3 22120 1740 ?RN Apr10 525:24 rsync --daemon
> nobody 22896 5.0 0.3 22828 1992 ?SN Apr11 21:20 rsync --daemon
> nobody3907 7.3 0.5 22336 2820 ?RN Apr11 15:30 rsync --daemon
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:48:01PM -0700, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> Also, in section 3.15, you say, "Fetching a series of deltas which
> update the same area is less efficient than calculating the deltas
> directly." This is true, but by my computations, the number of packages
> which chang
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 01:15, Martin Pool wrote:
> There seems to be a thread about rsync and Debian packages every
> couple of months. I've written up a document which tries to cover all
> of the questions and debates. It's pretty informal, but hopefully
> will be useful.
>
> http://rsync.samb
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
> I'd appreciate comments.
Hmm...
As you may know I'm both the APT author, administrator of the top level
debian mirrors and associated mirror network. So,
> 3.2 rsync is too hard on servers
> If it is, then I think we should fix the problems, rather tha
On 12 Apr 2002, Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think some more details is required regarding rproxy.
I've added a lot more detail about rproxy, and my understanding of
Goswin's proposal. Let me know if they're unclear.
> Why is nobody actively developing it?
I'm not sure what kind of
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Brian May wrote:
> I think some more details is required regarding rproxy.
>
> Why is nobody actively developing it?
>
> AFAIK, it solves all the problems regarding server load discussed in
> rsync, doesn't it???
No. I tested it out, and it still hits the server hard.
--
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 06:15:43PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> There seems to be a thread about rsync and Debian packages every
> couple of months. I've written up a document which tries to cover all
> of the questions and debates. It's pretty informal, but hopefully
> will be useful.
>
> http
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Martin Pool wrote:
> There seems to be a thread about rsync and Debian packages every
> couple of months. I've written up a document which tries to cover all
> of the questions and debates. It's pretty informal, but hopefully
> will be useful.
>
> http://rsync.samba.org/rs
> " " == esoR ocsirF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to set up our local partial mirror to run without
> attendance through multiple releases. If I hard code the
> release candidate name into the mirror script, wont it just
> break when testing goes stable?
The
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 08:13:26PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
>
> Suggestions to the script are welcome, esspecially: How do I make
> debconf popup a checklist like:
>
> ++
> | What distributions should be mirrored? |
> |
Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Suggestions to the script are welcome, esspecially: How do I make
> debconf popup a checklist like:
Multiselect data type.
--
see shy jo
> is rsync realy so good ?
The only real problem with it for this use, is that if the link dies
completely, I think rsync discards the partial image.
Other than that, it is muck more likely to result in a bit-for-bit copy of the
original than ftp, and if you've got the space for two copies of a
> One thing though, is there any chance you might consider a pair of new
> options: --regex-include and --regex-exclude. It shouldn't be too
> difficult using one of the new regex libraries (pcre comes to mind).
possibly. I know the current exclude mechanisms really aren't flexible
enough right n
Andrew Tridgell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll be releasing a "anonymous rsync" package soon that you guys might
> like.
Wonderful, this might obviate my need for mirror in many cases.
One thing though, is there any chance you might consider a pair of new
options: --regex-include and --regex
Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't have to be, especially for someone as Perl-savvy as you.
Being known as perl-savvy. Don't know whether to be insulted or
complimented :> a dark, hidden shame...
Seriously, the problem with mirror's inclusion/exclusion mechanism is
that
> Seems to be working much better. I just installed it on our main servers,
> the client gets,
>
> treacy 29488 4.4 5.2 3768 3320 p5 S20:32 0:15 rsync -avz
> treacy 29511 7.9 9.8 6660 6164 p5 S20:33 0:23 rsync -avz
>
> And the server gets,
>
> treacy 15724 9.7 6.5
[List people, please do not CC: Andrew, I'm cc'ing this to the list to
follow up on the thread I started earlier.]
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> > We at Debian have been using rsync to mirror our ftp and web archives and
> > unfortunately in our case rsync uses a massive amount of
[On fmirror:]
Rob> It's syntax made it really easy to specify things like "I want a
Rob> mirror of unstable and frozen, but only the {disks,binary}-{i386,all}
Rob> stuff. To do the same thing in mirror syntax is a much bigger hassle.
Shouldn't have to be, especially for someone as Perl-sav
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are there any alternatives to rsync that don't use as much memory?
(Assuming that you don't mind requiring ftp access...)
One of fmirror's stated design goals is to use as little RAM as
possible, and it has a much nicer inclusion/exclusion semantics
35 matches
Mail list logo
