portsnap mirror servers

Colin Percival cperciva at freebsd.org
Fri Apr 21 17:19:54 UTC 2006

Paul Mather wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 14:40 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
>> Hm, but I see a quite noticeable speed difference between portsnap1 and 
>> portsnap2. The second one is quite a bit faster.

I'll look into this over the summer.

> I notice that on 4.x portsnap never finds any mirrors because the grep
> of the output returned by "host -t srv ..." is not appropriate for 4.x's
> version of /usr/bin/host, which produces output different to that of 5.x
> onwards (a BIND8 vs BIND9 issue, I guess).  So, maybe because of this,
> all of the portsnaps running on 4.x machines are hitting the same server
> each time instead of randomly choosing a mirror, thereby causing that
> mirror to be a bit more loaded?

They are hitting the same server, but that server is portsnap2 (which is
also portsnap.daemonology.net, which is the default server for pre-1.0
versions of portsnap from the ports tree).  Given that most systems running
portsnap are FreeBSD 6.0 or 6.1, this doesn't cause much differential

Colin Percival

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list