Problem (again) with portsnap5.FreeBSD.org?

[Guido Falsi]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:22PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote:
> >>
> >>Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV:
> >>
> >>$ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org.
> >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org.
> >>
> >
> >Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite
> >normal.
> 
> I am seeing similiar issues with portsnap5.
> Are you pointing portsnap to update?
> 
> host -t srv _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap6.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 20 80 portsnap5.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 2 10 80 portsnap4.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap1.FreeBSD.org.
> _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap2.FreeBSD.org.

I'm getting the same DNS result you're getting.

portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems
are more frequently using other servers now.

A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap
simply timed out and tried another server shortly after.

-- 
Guido Falsi <mad at madpilot.net>