Re: Sudden increase in size of Debian?
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:21:55AM -0600, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
>
> Now you have me interested. Do you already have a script to mirror
> only stable and unstable with rsync? I think I would try only
> mirroring stable with such a script, but I thought it would take
> having a program parse things like the Packages files for each release
> and main/contrib/non-free sub folder and <arch> that you were after.
I'm currently testing a script that does exactly this. It builds a list
of files needed from the Packages and/or Sources files for the desired
release and arch. It then fetches only those files from the public
archive. Seems to be working fairly well at the moment.
> feeding the list of files to rsync seemed a little crazy. I don't know
> if rsync has a max for command line input, or if it would be a bad
> idea to connect to rsync each file or sub batch. I have read that
> rsync can use a lot of memory because it keeps a list of all the files
> in memory until it is done.
rsync supports an option for including from a file "--include-from"
> If I'm mirroring stable, doesn't it only change when a revision is
> done, so I don't really need to mirror it that often?
Correct. However with an rsync mirror script the hit is negligible
since the Packages\Sources file should not have changed.
> Do you use the packages on the mirror for anything other than as a
> local http/ftp target for apt-get? If not, what reasons do you have
> for mirroring over using something like apt-cacher?
Depends on what your after. Personally, I perfer the response from a
local mirror when installing new packages and it gives me the option of
building ISOs via Jigdo. However, after the initial retrieval,
apt-cacher would do the same. So, it's really a matter of preference.
Many see a local mirror as a waste of bandwidth and I can see their
reasoning.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley,
"Proper Studies", 1927
Reply to: