Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 13:11, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> Colin Percival <[e-mail]> writes:
> > CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog.
>
> if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right.

Does using CVSup over an asymmetric link qualify as `not using it=20
right`?

[From http://www.cvsup.org/howsofast.html ]

"The volume of data sent by the client is comparable to that sent by the=20
server. On a typical full-duplex link, this effectively doubles the=20
usable bandwidth."

It still can be quite fast due to it's diff based nature. Also it is=20
more widespread than portsnap, which is not really surprising, but=20
makes the probability of finding a fast mirror higher. (For example,=20
from my office the avg roundtrip to the portsnap site is 7 times the=20
roundtrip to the local CVSup mirror.)

I'm thinking about making some mesurements with different updating=20
methods (AnonCVS, CVSup, CVSync, rsync, portsnap come to mind) over=20
symmetric and asymmetric lines.

Any suggestions on what typical usage scenarios and updating practices=20
might be are welcome. (e.g. once a day / once a week / when freshports=20
notifies me that something on my watchlist has changed).


>
> I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no
> need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it.

I agree with that.
>
> DES

m.
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"