cornel panceac wrote:
2008/6/16 Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 08:14 +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
I _might_ do better if I use parallel downloads from more servers, but
I
figure if I do that I make things worse at the server and on the
network
between. Besides, I _know_ some public ftp (and rsync) server
operators
object to parallel connexions from a single IP address. I don't need
to
be banned for 24 hours.
AFAIK apt-get uses parallel connections on different servers.
I can't tell that even that is true. My debian systems have one primary
source of packages, and one of security updates. I don't have a ready
way to test package downloads, but certainly getting metadata (updated
package info) doesn't seem to run in parallel.
Most Debian users will have at least two mirrors enabled, their base
repo plus security. They may also have contrib and (I think it still
exists) non-free. Oh, and volatile (spam filters and other frequently
updated data).
I don't think I would want apt-get hitting all these at once, and I've
not net considered after-market repos such as backport.org and all those
catalogued at http://apt-get.org/
which was the whole idea.
Debian doesn't use a mirror list, it asks users to choose a mirror at
install/setup time and that's where is sources new packages into the future.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
