Subject: Re: My cvs update just took 11:57 (12 hours!)
To: None <>
From: Sean Davis <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/06/2004 15:49:31
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:42:04PM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:
> Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> > Hmm... How a mirrors may update your copies when main server doesn't
> > respond?
> You see, that's the problem. People overload the main server =>
> mirrors can't update either => people using mirrors try using the
> main server => people overload the main server => [loop detected].
> I don't understand why people want to use the main server at all.
> The mirrors are usually much faster (that's even more true for ftp).

Usually? I've never seen a mirror be faster than anoncvs since they
upgraded. And the old anoncvs server was able to handle a *LOT* more
concurrent users than this one with its resource limits. It would get slow,
but my point is it would *work*. This anoncvs server just drops you if there
are too many users connected. There needs to be more than one anoncvs, with
some sort of load balancing scheme setup, if they're going to be dropping


/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
 X  Against HTML                       aka dive
/ \ Email!