/usr/portsnap vs. /var/db/portsnap

[Colin Percival]

M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <42F61960.4020400 at freebsd.org>
>             Colin Percival <cperciva at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : very little reason for anyone to be running
> : a portsnap mirror unless it's a public mirror,
> 
> Our experience with cvsup would suggest otherwise.  Many places with
> large numbers or even small numbers of machines run cvsup mirrors that
> are private.  I expect that universities will want to run mirrors that
> they might not want non-students accessing (eg, internal bandwidth is
> free, external is expensive).

Portsnap != CVSup.  In particular, an HTTP proxy which is used by five
hundred users running portsnap will use less bandwidth than a portsnap
mirror.  The "right" solution for nearly all organizations is a caching
HTTP proxy.

Colin Percival