Hi, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 19, Daniel Kobras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with splitting into ftp-full-monty.d.o, carrying all archs,
>> including the popular ones, and ftp.d.o, carrying only the most popular
>> subset? This way, there's no need to mirror from both of them, and
>> duplication is kept to a minimum. Slightly increased traffic from the
>> fullblown server is the only drawback I see compared to the ports
>> proposal.
> That on some servers I'd like to mirror both archives, and I'd rather not
> waste a few GB on duplicated files.
This may be a stupid question, but if you already mirror full-monty, what
would you gain by also mirroring ftp.d.o on the same server?
But: if you insist: since filenames of the one are a subset of the other,
this sequence would save you from storing or downloading ftp.d.o twice:
- rsync ftp.d.o
- cp -rlu ftp/pool/* fullmonty/pool
- rsync fullmonty
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
