On 2006.04.19 09:50:31 +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:28:56AM +0100, Chris wrote: > > On 18/04/06, Colin Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why do you think there should be an .eu mirror? > > > > Whilst portsnap is fast, it is a noticeable speed difference when > > using from eu servers, I also think its a good idea for redundancy. > > I did not yet check in the sources or with tcpdump, but from the > htrougput I see, I'd guess, there's a lot of sequential two-way > communication involved. That kind of traffic is massively influenced by
Hey, Recent portsnap versions (since the ones shipped in 6.0 AFAIR) uses HTTP pipelining (when possible) which means that the latency really doesn't matter since many requests are sent at once without waiting for the reply. I should mention that when pipelining is enabled I don't really see a big difference when using portsnap from Europe compared to systems in the US. More often the local disk limits the speed of portsnap updates for me rather than bandwith/latency. As Colin has said before, there will be more mirrors later, but there really just isn't a need for more right now. -- Simon L. Nielsen
pgpEnLZ2E3Q1N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
