please test: Secure ports tree updating

[Marton Kenyeres]

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Colin Percival <colin.percival at wadham.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> > CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog.
>
> if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right.

Does using CVSup over an asymmetric link qualify as `not using it 
right`?

[From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ]

"The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the 
server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the 
usable bandwidth."

It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is 
more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but 
makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example, 
from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the 
roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.)

I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating 
methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over 
symmetric and asymmetric lines.

Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices 
might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports 
notifies me that something on my watchlist has changed).


>
> I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no
> need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it.

I agree with that.
>
> DES

m.