[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: standard apt/yum meta-data format

Robert Collins wrote:
> > > Then the client can trivially choose the most bw efficient way to
> > > receive the update.
> > 
> > No need for that one, if deltas larger than the original are simply not
> > created on the server. AFAICS the index file should look like this:
> I presume you mean deltas with an aggregate size > than the current
> Packages ? 


> > 20040703001	Packages.gz
> > 20040702001	Packages-cdiff-20040702001.gz
> > 20040701001	Packages-cdiff-20040701001.gz
> > 20040630001	Packages-cdiff-20040630001.gz
> > 20040629001	Packages-cdiff-20040629001.gz
> > ...
> > 
> > with an cutoff based on cdiff size and age. That's some redundancy,
> > but it simplifies processing. And apt-get doesn't have to make
> > assumptions about the server's update frequency, clocks, timezones,
> > etc.
> I don't think that adding the file size forces apt-get to make any
> assumptions about update frequency.

This was a general remark about the format described above. :-)

> But it does allow more client side
> optimisations in the future. (There are more factors than raw size to
> consider - round trips, processing overhead etc.

Er, which one exactly? For round trip time, we should keep the size
of the index file small, because it has to be fetched instead of the
Packages file timestamp, even for unsuccessful (already-updated)

> Giving the client the
> info to optimise as needed in the future makes sense to me)

But we optimize for low server load. The client load is mostly


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: