Re: Proxy instead of mirror? (was: perhaps sort by priority?)
> > I don't know about the implementation details myself. I just think it
> > seems wasteful to copy a few gigs of data every day that may never be
> > looked at. We need a way to address that, and squid seems like a
> > possibility.
>
> Problem with squid: The first one trying to download a file from the proxy
> is out of luck. For him it takes just as long (maybe even a little longer)
> as downloading it directly. Like the debian mirror here at our university:
> Within the network, I have transfer 500K+, accessing servers outside, I get
> 5 to 10K. If there was some combination - like mirroring important files as
> before and proxying (i.e. mirror on demand) anything else. We could then let
> the individual sited decide how much they want to consider "important".
>
> (All this being pure theory. Of course it depends on how likely it is to be
> the first one to download a file.)
I've been using squid as though it were a mirror for a while...
Its great b/c it is often nearly as fast as
a complete mirror, but _much_ smaller, since i often install the
same packages on a bunch of computers which aren't directly on the 'net.
It is also satisfying b/c bandwidth is never wasted mirroring
files that won't be used.
I keep meaning to look into the best way to make it not keep
outdated packages cached... there _is_ something called "module"
support but I know nothing about it.
- Dave
Reply to: