Geoff Crompton schrieb:
>Edward Faulkner wrote:
>
>
>>Or you could just use bittorrent. The server runs a tracker and
>>everyone cooperatively downloads chunks. Same kind of idea, but it
>>doesn't require multicast support (which may or may not exist in
>>various networks).
>>
>>
>
>When y
On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Edward Faulkner wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 11:13:35AM +1100, Geoff Crompton wrote:
When you say "The server runs a tracker", are you explaining
bittorrent,
or do the security.debian.org servers actually run a tracker at
the moment?
I was just explaining bi
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 11:13:35AM +1100, Geoff Crompton wrote:
> When you say "The server runs a tracker", are you explaining bittorrent,
> or do the security.debian.org servers actually run a tracker at the moment?
I was just explaining bittorrent. Sorry for the confusion.
> How well does bitt
Edward Faulkner wrote:
> Or you could just use bittorrent. The server runs a tracker and
> everyone cooperatively downloads chunks. Same kind of idea, but it
> doesn't require multicast support (which may or may not exist in
> various networks).
When you say "The server runs a tracker", are you
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:40:38PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Instead of having all users connect and DL their own copies of
> security updates (which requires tremendous bandwidth), would it be
> possible to use multicast to 'broadcast' the updates. The thought is
> that updates could be di
Interesting, indeed. Looks like multicast is available on some networks:
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.sum
But the best place to ask this type of question might be the
debian-admin or debian-mirrors mailing list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Has this concept been considered?
>
>Instead
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Neal Murphy wrote:
> On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:05, Michael Loftis wrote:
> > Good idea except this requires large scale rollout of mutlicast, which
> > AFAIK, hasn't happened.
>
> I thought it had progressed further than being a curiosity. Is its current
> scale enough
On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:05, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Good idea except this requires large scale rollout of mutlicast, which
> AFAIK, hasn't happened.
I thought it had progressed further than being a curiosity. Is its current
scale enough to make a difference?
N
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Good idea except this requires large scale rollout of mutlicast, which
AFAIK, hasn't happened.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Has this concept been considered?
Instead of having all users connect and DL their own copies of security updates
(which requires tremendous bandwidth), would it be possible to use multicast to
'broadcast' the updates. The thought is that updates could be distributed
without saturating the serv
10 matches
Mail list logo
