> From time to time the question arises on different forums whether it is
> possible to efficiently use rsync with apt-get. Recently there has been a
> thread here on debian-devel and it was also mentioned in Debian Weekly News
> June 24th, 2003. However, I only saw different small parts of a huge
Michael Karcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:29:06AM +0200, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > It should put them in the package in the order they came from
> > readdir(), which will depend on the filesystem. This is normally the
> > order in which they were created,
> As long
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:29:06AM +0200, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It should put them in the package in the order they came from
> readdir(), which will depend on the filesystem. This is normally the
> order in which they were created,
As long as the file system uses an inefficient approach for dir
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:01:34AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > I believe htree == dir_index, so tune2fs(8) and mke2fs(8) have the answer.
>
> My /home has that enabled and readdir() returns files in creation order.
>
Then you don't have a htree-capable kernel or the directory isn't
in
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> I can only presume this is new or obscure, since everything I tried
> had the traditional behaviour. Can't see how to turn it on, either.
>
It's new for 2.5. Backports to 2.4 are available here:
http://thunk.org/tytso
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:28:09PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:48:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > Err, no. If the htree (hash tree) indexing feature is turned on for
> > > ext2 or ext3 file
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:48:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Err, no. If the htree (hash tree) indexing feature is turned on for
> > ext2 or ext3 filesystems, they will returned sorted by the hash of the
> > filename --- eff
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 05:48:24PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:12:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
> > > Yes, when saying "random order" I obviously ment "in the order readdir()
> > > returns them".
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On ext2, as an example, stat()ting or open()ing a directory of 1
> files in the order returned by readdir() will be vastly quicker than
> in some other sequence (like, say, bytewise lexicographic) due to the
> way in which the filesystem looks up i
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:12:03PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
> > Yes, when saying "random order" I obviously ment "in the order readdir()
> > returns them". It's random for me. :-)))
> >
> > It can easily be different on diff
Hi,
On 6 Jul 2003, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> 2. most of the time you have no old file to rsync against. Only
> mirrors will have an old file and they already use rsync.
This is definitely true if you install your system from CD's and then
upgrade it. However, if you keep on upgrading from testin
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 10:28:07PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > It should put them in the package in the order they came from
> > readdir(), which will depend on the filesystem. This is normally the
> > order in which they were created, and s
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> It should put them in the package in the order they came from
> readdir(), which will depend on the filesystem. This is normally the
> order in which they were created, and should not vary when
> rebuilding. As such, sorting the list probably doesn't c
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 12:37:00PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote:
> > 4. (and this is the knockout) rsync support for apt-get is NO
> > WANTED. rsync uses too much resources (cpu and more relevant IO) on
> > the server side and a widespread use of rsync for apt-get would choke
> > the rsync mirrors
On Sun, 2003-07-06 at 09:27, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> 4. (and this is the knockout) rsync support for apt-get is NO
> WANTED. rsync uses too much resources (cpu and more relevant IO) on
> the server side and a widespread use of rsync for apt-get would choke
> the rsync mirrors and do more harm tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 06 July 2003 11:27, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Koblinger Egmont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > >From time to time the question arises on different forums whether it is
> >
> > possible to efficiently use rsync with apt-get. Recent
On 6 Jul 2003, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Doogie is thinking about extending the Bittorrent protocol for use as
> apt-get method. I talked with him on irc about some design ideas and
> so far it looks realy good if he can get some mirrors to host it.
My plans are to require no additional software
Koblinger Egmont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> >From time to time the question arises on different forums whether it is
> possible to efficiently use rsync with apt-get. Recently there has been a
> thread here on debian-devel and it was also mentioned in Debian Weekly News
> June 24th, 20
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:56:41PM +0200, Koblinger Egmont wrote:
> order of files
>
> dpkg-deb puts the files in the .deb package in random order. I hate this
> misfeature since it's hard to eye-grep anything from ``dpkg -L'' or F3 in
> mc. We run ``dpkg-deb --build'' using the sortdir library ([
Hi,
>From time to time the question arises on different forums whether it is
possible to efficiently use rsync with apt-get. Recently there has been a
thread here on debian-devel and it was also mentioned in Debian Weekly News
June 24th, 2003. However, I only saw different small parts of a huge an
20 matches
Mail list logo
