Re: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Brenart (TT)" <Rob.Brenart@tradingtechnologies.com>
Date: Friday, February 4, 2005 2:13 pm
Subject: RE: kernel? 2.4.x vs 2.6.x
> I believe you're missing the point. The idea isn't to make life easier
> on the downloaders, the idea is to eliminate redundant information on
> the host.
No I have not missed the point. I am looking at this from a practical
point of view. You want to implement an idea in order relieve stress on
hosts, however the idea is not practical for the user. Therefore the
idea will not be used by the user as long as other options are available
and more convenient. Thus, goal of the idea is not realized. In order
to overcome this, the idea would have to be made mandatory, or a
practical solution or fix would need to be affected. The latter was the
point of my statement. I wrongly said bittorrent but meant jigdo is
slow, and if it is to be a viable solution it will have to be fixed.
Now if jigdo is meant to be solution for updated already downloaded
images, then it is much faster(obviously) than downloading the entire
image directly. If this is the case then fine, it is good for that
purpose but it is not useful for those who are downloading for an
initial install, and therefore won't relieve stress on servers. This
problem will be alleviated when everyone is using the net installer but
for those whos networks do not immediately function or who have have
slow connection, the cd images will still be a wanted commodity. In
those situations jigdo could be a good solution, if it were faster.
(Although the discrepancy in download speed is most likely less
apparent(or non-existent) if you are using a slow connection.)
Reply to: