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

Re: Q. Should one mirror debian.security.org? Good or Bad Idea?



On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 05:58:51PM +0100, Giacomo Mulas wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Walter Tautz wrote:
> 
> > just wondering if this would be a good idea. We currently have
> > >80 machines that do an update once a day on this host so
> > I think it may be a good idea to mirror the archive locally, say
> > once a day via rsync?
> 
> I have a similar situation and I do mirror security. Of course, in
> /etc/apt/sources.list I have both my mirror _and_ security.debian.org, so
> that if an update already made it into the mirror all computers get it
> from there, otherwise they _still_ get it from security. I also use a
> proxy, so that anyway updates get downloaded once even if they come from
> security and not from the local mirror. It requires a little bit of work
> to properly set it up (not much), but then it works like a charm.

 On a cluster I run, and on my Debian machines at home, I have
/var/cache/apt shared between the nodes with NFS.  I haven't done anything
about sharing package lists yet, so all the nodes have to apt-get update
individually.  I think this is non-optimal, because apt-get update writes
/var/cache/apt/pkgcache.bin (and srcpkgcache.bin), so the contents of those
files depends on which machine did the last apt-get update, and they don't
all have the same things in their sources.list.  (e.g. some have only sarge,
some have stable+unstable, some don't have and deb-src lines.)

 Anyway, it seems to work, and packages only get downloaded once.  I know
that apt does enough locking that NFS sharing /var/cache/apt is safe.

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@cor , des.ca)

"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BC

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: