-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mike McGrath wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:46:05PM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > Seeing as it is a mirroring daemon, the network is the bottleneck. If it
> > then either you're sitting next door, our implementation
is bad, or the
> > hardware shouldn't be a mirror in the first place.
> Speaking from experience, the network isn't always the bottleneck.
> I/O performance is often a performance problem, especially when
> walking the directory tree to build filelists. CPU performance can
> come into play if you are performing hashes or compression of the data
> to be transferred. I suggest you post your message to the Fedora
> mirror-list-d where I'm sure you'll get lots of feedback.
Very true, if this behaves similarly to rsync. Reading over a large
change set to transmit only small changes is very resource intensive
everywhere but the network.
The way we are planning to handle updates should keep this small. The network
side knows nothing of the on-disk file structure and the tree-creator part
knows nothing of the network other than "it's where the things I need come
from", so updates won't be "what's changed in this directory?" so
much as "what
do I not have that is on my shopping list?" which is then asked for of the
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----