On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:32:20 +0100 Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:06:35 -0500 Andrew Antle <andrew.antle@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Hannes Rist <hrist@selfnet.de> 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.