Re: apt-cacher
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:37:33 -0400
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:09:22PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > Now that I'll be upgrading my lan's server to sarge, I plan also
> > to install apt-cacher on it, so my other machines won't have to do
> > as much long-haul net traffic.
> >
> > Can I start the woody->sarge upgrade by updating, first,
> > aptitude and perl (that seems to be conventional wisdom)
> > then installing sarge's apt-cacher, and then pointing
> > the sources.list to apt-cacher running on the very machine
> > that is being upgraded to sarge?
> >
> > In the future, when further updates take place, will apt-cacher
> > know how to update itself while it's being used to download and
> > cache its replacement?
>
> Since you are serving machines on a network, you really want
> apt-proxy.
Apt-cacher serves the same purpose as apt-proxy and works just as well,
in my experience. I switched to it before apt-proxy v2 hit Sarge and
found it to be better than apt-proxy v1 and it would start streaming the
file faster (helping to avoid timeouts that I had problems with in
apt-proxy).
Since you stated that apt-proxy is better, do you have some evidence or
a reason for your statement, or is it just preference?
HTH,
Jacob
Reply to: