No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
--[[User:Wwoods|WillWoods]] 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Wwoods|WillWoods]] 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
== NFS == | |||
Have you folks analyzed the file access patterns of debuginfo consumers such as | Have you folks analyzed the file access patterns of debuginfo consumers such as | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
--[[User:Fche|Fche]] 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Fche|Fche]] 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
From what I've seen of the access patterns of GDB, yes, it could work fairly efficiently for local sites. But it's not something I would recommend for proper implementation of this feature. | |||
NFS over the internet is not a good idea. I'm sure many sites firewall it - in either direction - and it's not something I'd want to ask the infrastructure team to set up and support. | |||
WebDAV, on the other hand, is just extended HTTP. Very few places will firewall that off, there's well-known ways to implement proxies/caching, and it still supports <code>seek()</code> and downloading partial files. | |||
--[[User:Wwoods|WillWoods]] 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:12, 6 July 2009
Versioning
12:02 < dwmw2> I'm slightly confused about versioning 12:02 < dwmw2> does it cope if clients aren't completely up to date?
Yes. The debuginfo filenames are unique, even across different versions of the same package. So, there will be debuginfo files available for every version of every package available in the debuginfo repos.
--WillWoods 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
To clarify a bit: a properly-updated debuginfofs server should have debuginfo for all packages in all configured Fedora repos - that is, we'll have debuginfo for the base version, the updated version, and the updates-testing version of every package.
For packages that have left the repos (e.g. obsoleted updates) debuginfo isn't deleted immediately, but probably will be deleted after a short grace period - a week for stable releases, less for Rawhide.
--WillWoods 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
NFS
Have you folks analyzed the file access patterns of debuginfo consumers such as gdb to see whether plain NFS would be suitable?
--Fche 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen of the access patterns of GDB, yes, it could work fairly efficiently for local sites. But it's not something I would recommend for proper implementation of this feature.
NFS over the internet is not a good idea. I'm sure many sites firewall it - in either direction - and it's not something I'd want to ask the infrastructure team to set up and support.
WebDAV, on the other hand, is just extended HTTP. Very few places will firewall that off, there's well-known ways to implement proxies/caching, and it still supports seek() and downloading partial files.
--WillWoods 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)