On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 04:57:06PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:37:33 -0400
>
> 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?
>
Both. apt-proxy lets me specify the following things that I could not
find a way to specify for apt-cacher:
1. max size of the local archive
2. max number of versions of each package to keep per distro (e.g., 2
means the two most recent from stable, testing and unstable for a total
of six)
3. how often to sweep the archive for obselete packages
4. how to allow connections via ftp and rsync
5. max age of packages in local archive
apt-proxy also caches the the Packages.gz files from the mirrors in
addition to the packages themselves. This saves quite a bit as for
Sarge they are ~5 MB each.
apt-cacher also requires you to do some funny things with IP addresses
to restrict who can access it since it runs over apache. apt-proxy runs
on its own port (default 9999) so you can filter requests at the
hosts.{allow,deny} and iptables levels. Much more secure, IMHO, if your
machine faces the net.
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr
Attachment:
pgpGHCowrX55r.pgp
Description: PGP signature