On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 01:03:22PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote: > >> > >>Yep - update5 is currently weighted 50% in the SRV: > >> > >>$ host -t srv _http._tcp.update.freebsd.org > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 35 80 update4.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 50 80 update5.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 5 80 update3.FreeBSD.org. > >>_http._tcp.update.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 update2.FreeBSD.org. > >> > > > >Thank you. This explains what I was seeing and makes it in fact quite > >normal. > > I am seeing similiar issues with portsnap5. > Are you pointing portsnap to update? > > host -t srv _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap6.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 20 80 portsnap5.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 2 10 80 portsnap4.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap1.FreeBSD.org. > _http._tcp.portsnap.freebsd.org has SRV record 1 10 80 portsnap2.FreeBSD.org.
I'm getting the same DNS result you're getting. portsnap5 has less weight now and is in fact being used less. My systems are more frequently using other servers now. A few days ago portsnap5 did not respond, anyway in that case portsnap simply timed out and tried another server shortly after. -- Guido Falsi <m...@madpilot.net> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
