Re: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>
Date: Thursday, February 3, 2005 11:34 pm
Subject: Re: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
> > I actually made a mistake with that comment. I actually used
> jigdo. It
> > was 2-3 times slower then fetching the images directly. In any
> case, if
> > the point is to relieve stress on Debian servers/mirrors then why
> should> I have to share files in order to get a fast download.
> Especially for
> > those who are only trying to get the Debian images for
> installation. I
> > had no other for bittorrent(or jigdo for that matter) but I used the
> > later of them because I thought it was a good idea. However, in
> > practice it didn't work out to well. I guess my point is: if Debian
> > wants people to use alternative means of downloading images,
> those means
> > should be as easy and as fast as downloading the images directly
> through> ftp/http.
>
> jigdo is a direct download. jigdo is nothing at all like
> bittorrent.
> jigdo retrieves the parts and assembles an image based off a
> template.
> this way the mirrors don't have to carry gigs and gigs of extra,
> redundant,
> data. also when you go to build a new release, you can feed the
> files from
> your old release to jigdo, and it can re-use them (off CD even)
> where they
> match. it can, and does, often improve the time ti takes.
I can see how jigdo would improve on download time when updated a CD.
This is probably useful for those who use their cd's as a repository.
For everyone else who just needed the images to do an initial install
and then update with apt-get, it is not useful. Since it is much slower
than getting the image files directly, I ended downloaded many of the
images directly. I cannot comment on bittorent since I do not use it.
> however,
> bittorrent is still usually faster.
Reply to: