[Nottingham] NTL Cache Performance Suggestions

[.waffle]

apt-get cache? Err... Isn't it stored in like /var/apt/packages or
something?

.waffle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Tibbles" <alex_tibbles@yahoo.co.uk>
To: <nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Nottingham] NTL Cache Performance Suggestions


| > I like that:  ``Instead of downloading the odd 5MB
| > file from the mirror, I'm
| > going to continuously rsync 80GB but never use 99.9%
| > of it.''
| ... although, with sarge practically stalled at the
| moment, the downloads won't even reach that. rsync
| AFAIK takes large quantities of _server_ CPU time -
| which is why jigdo was introduced to replace the
| pseudo image kit
|
(http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/mini/Debian-Jigdo/whyjigdo.html#WHYNOTUSETHEWHOLE
PIK).
| So, while the bandwidth donor has to pay by the GB,
| rsync'ing limits the number of concurrent users far
| more.
|
| On a slightly different note, I run two sid machines
| and it feels really wasteful to download xfree86 (et
| al.) twice. What I could use is an apt-get cache. Does
| anyone know of such a thing?
|
| alex
|
|
| > -Paul
| > --
| > No War.    Nottingham, GB
| indeed
|
| __________________________________________________
| Do You Yahoo!?
| Everything you'll ever need on one web page
| from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
| http://uk.my.yahoo.com
|
| _______________________________________________
| Nottingham mailing list
| Nottingham@mailman.lug.org.uk
| http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham
|