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

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <42F63353.7030707 at freebsd.org>
            Colin Percival <cperciva at freebsd.org> writes:
: 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.

I'm not worried about bandwidth usage so much as I am about
availability.  The primary reason I cvsup the CVS tree is so that it
is always available to me locally and I don't have to depend on my ISP
having my link up.  Proxie http doesn't help with that at all.

Warner