Re: rsync or wget?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:22:37PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 03:53:31AM +1000, bob parker wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:48, David Fokkema wrote:
> > > Hi group,
> > >
> > > I've just installed apt-proxy. Should I use rsync or wget for fetching
> > > packages? I don't really understand the differences. I do understand
> > > that rsync can sync to filesystems by only downloading the differences,
> > > but apt-proxy knows what it needs to download, right? Only one package,
> > > or a list or something like that, not a whole filesystem. And once a
> > > transfer is started, what is the difference in speed between rsync and
> > > wget? Does rsync do something very smart?
> > >
> > > So, basically: should I use rsync or ftp or http servers in my
> > > apt-proxy.conf?
> >
> > I know nothing about apt-proxy but I do know that wget saturates my rubber
> > band powered dial-up connection and makes browsing very unpleasant while it's
> > going on. rsync does not saturate the link but it gets ~70meg / 8hours
> > whereas ftp/http gets ~100meg in the same time.
>
> I would suggest wget then. Because apt-proxy requests the file immediately
> once it has received a request you want to get the data to the requester
> (apt-get) ASAP.
>
> And if you're worried about your line being saturated, you need to setup
> QoS. There are some seperate pagkages, but fiaif includes firewalling, and
> QoS features in one and has taken my average ping time time down from 500ms,
> to 30-50ms on a 384/1.5 DSL link.
Yes, wget it is, :-) I'll look into QoS. I know what it is, of course,
but I never thought I would need it. I'm not that concerned with slow
browsing, but I have some ssh connections open from time to time. It
would be nice to keep them responsive while my other programs saturate
my internet connection. I'll take a look at fiaif.
Thanks,
David
Reply to: