On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 17:24 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:

Kenneth Porter wrote:

...

--On Monday, December 17, 2007 5:10 PM -0500 "William L. Maltby" CentOS4Bill@triad.rr.com wrote:

...

Well, there's so few going right now that I'm showing 38 days to get the DVD. My normal dnld from a mirror travels appx. 600Mb/sec.

I'll wait until most of the U.S. goes home before I give up and use the normal download though.

Is there an issue with the tracker? I just restarted my CentOS 5.0 DVD torrent (I updated to 5.1 via yum) and am getting "connection refused" from the tracker. torrentinfo-console shows this as the tracker URL:

http://torrent.centos.org:6969/announce

The 5.0 DVD torrent can be found here:

http://mirrors.easynews.com//linux/centos/5.0/isos/i386/CentOS-5.0-i386-bin-DVD.torrent

We only have the latest (5.1, 4.6) isos on the tracker now.

Those are what I'm dnldg. I'll be patient until later.

<snip sig>

Kenneth Porter wrote:

...

We only have the latest (5.1, 4.6) isos on the tracker now.

Does it place much load on the tracker to leave the older torrents listed?

we've just had a long conversation on the list about exactly what a centos minor release means, so keeping that in context - why exactly would someone want to download 5.0 when 5.0 + updates is 5.1 ?

Why use torrents? With torrents I get around 25Kb/sec.

With places such as utah.edu [I am in North America] I got 320Kb/sec steady. It took me 3hr and a bit to download the 5.1 dvd. As far as I understand it, Utah and the other mirrors donated the bandwidth to the community.

centos@911networks.com wrote:

Why use torrents? With torrents I get around 25Kb/sec.

With places such as utah.edu [I am in North America] I got 320Kb/sec steady. It took me 3hr and a bit to download the 5.1 dvd. As far as I understand it, Utah and the other mirrors donated the bandwidth to the community.

Even if they donate to the community, they still pay for it. The less we take, happier they are to donate for many years.

Ugo

On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 20:24 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:

centos@911networks.com wrote:

...

Why use torrents? With torrents I get around 25Kb/sec.

When I did 5.0 and 4.5, I got great results, but I saw lots of peers then. This time I've seen many fewer and that is causing the abysmal results I saw.

...

the port your client is using for torrent should be enabled in any firewalls (and if you're being NAT, it should be forwarded). If i'm in a corporate environment where this is impossible, I'll use a shell server outside the company network, torrent from there, then rsync-slurp it at night.

I think this is not my situation? At home, have an IPCop latest (same as before, but latest release) and all private network. AFAIK, I don't need to do any of that manually. No?

I saw in another post that a provider might be causing a problem. I'm on TWC down south. Any way to test and tell?

torrents may start slow, but if its all working right, they generally pick up speed pretty quickly and run at near wire speeds, especially one as well seeded as this one they transfer symetrically over the sockets, sending and recieving data on all peer connections, this can hammer a network connection, so most torrent clients have a feature to bandwidth limit (I often choose a number around 60% of the pipe speed)

I don't throttle mine unless I'm in a big hurry (s e l d o m *(YAWN)* ).

AFAICT, there just weren't many peers out there offering to participate.

<snip sig stuff>

Both my systems are already up-to-date. I'm just getting the images for backup, new installs and to share via torrent.

I saw one poster mention rsync. I would expect the rebuilds had lots of underlying lib changes along with some higher-level code. I suspect rsync wouldn't match a lot.

Anyway, doing a normal dnld ATM and will share the images ASAP.

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 07:02 -0800, Benjamin Franz wrote:

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, William L. Maltby wrote:

[...]

...

Both my systems are already up-to-date. I'm just getting the images for backup, new installs and to share via torrent.

I saw one poster mention rsync. I would expect the rebuilds had lots of underlying lib changes along with some higher-level code. I suspect rsync wouldn't match a lot.

More than you think. My local yum RPM repositories mirror rsync on 4.6 matched 60% of the existing stuff (exclusive of the ISOs, which I haven't synced yet). When you are talking gigabytes, that isn't anything to sneeze at.

That's right. I'm surprised so much matched up. I guess that I wasn't thinking deep enough. A point release would tend to be less radically changed than a new release.

Good to know.

Thx

Kenneth Porter wrote:

--On Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:30 AM +0000 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:

...

we've just had a long conversation on the list about exactly what a centos minor release means, so keeping that in context - why exactly would someone want to download 5.0 when 5.0 + updates is 5.1 ?

In my case the situation is reversed: Why share 5.1 when I already have a copy of 5.0?

because when you yum update, the delta is going to be a lot larger when you install machines with 5.0 - so why not install 5.1 and just get lesser number of updates ?

At the moment, if you install 5.0 and run a yum update, you can be downloading upto 1.6 GB of updates.. Not sure if you want to do that.

On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:05 +0000, John Bowden wrote:

On Monday 17 December 2007 23:24:01 Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

Kenneth Porter wrote:

...

--On Monday, December 17, 2007 5:10 PM -0500 "William L. Maltby"

CentOS4Bill@triad.rr.com wrote:

...

<snip>

...

We only have the latest (5.1, 4.6) isos on the tracker now.

I can up load a .torrent file to the thepiratebay if that helps. I'm sharing both 5 and as of Sunday night 5.1. I still see a few people dl 5 off me and will keep sharing it as long as its being down loaded.

At 07:40 EST (+5 UTC?) with most of the U.S still asleep, I've 8 and 6 peers connected and uploading for the 4.6 and 5.1 DVDs respectively. The same CD versions only have 1 and 6.

Just thought it might help you decide.