On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:32:20 +0100 Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:06:35 -0500 > Andrew Antle <andrew.antle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Hannes Rist <hrist@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > Ionut Biru wrote: > > >> > > >> On 02/02/2010 07:53 PM, Damjan Georgievski wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There's also the problem that some mirrors (most of the ones > > >>>>> I've tried) sync the package database before syncing all the > > >>>>> packages. > > >>>> > > >>>> Actually, syncing the db last is not going to improve things: > > >>>> if some packages get deleted, they won't be found when updating > > >>>> against the old db. > > >>> > > >>> - download new packages > > >>> - update db > > >>> - delete old packages > > >>> > > >> > > >> now tell us how do this order with rsync. > > > > > > the debian mirror scripts have such a staged setup with 2 rsync > > > runs, might wanna have a look at them mirror.debian.org somewhere > > > here. http://www.debian.org/mirror/ftpmirror 'how to mirror' it's > > > explained there. > > > > from http://www.debian.org/mirror/ftpmirror#how > > ... > > * MUST perform a 2-stage sync > > ... > > Rationale: if archive mirroring is done in a single stage, there > > will be periods of time > > during which the index files will reference files not yet mirrored. > > ... > > Sounds pretty good, Hannes. > > I must be missing something.. isn't --delete-after good enough? > > Dieter On mir.archlinux.fr, we use --delay-updates, it uses more disk spaces and if it fails, should restart from 0 but db is normally coherent with packages.
