If apache 2.0 works with large files, then we'd be happy to mirror the dvd.iso files.
About Apache 2.2, I was referring to an extra package outside of core. But if the functionality is not needed then that's fine.
Bob.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of seth vidal Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:27 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: RE: [CentOS-mirror] CentOS Mirror System Proposals)
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 14:21 -0600, Bob Pierce wrote:
These all sound like good changes to me.
We would most likely be willing to mirror the dvd.iso files. Do you know if there are any plans to build an RPM of apache 2.2 for CentOS4?
It looks like Apache 2.2 has large file size support.
apache 2.0 works for LFS (well, at least on x86_64).
and an apache 2.2 package would need to be in centos-plus or addons or whatever - not in core.
-sv
_______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 14:58 -0600, Bob Pierce wrote:
If apache 2.0 works with large files, then we'd be happy to mirror the dvd.iso files.
About Apache 2.2, I was referring to an extra package outside of core. But if the functionality is not needed then that's fine.
easy to test 1. make a file from urandom that's 3.4GB (size of avg iso) 2. create a checksum of it (sha1sum thatfile) 3. transfer file using wget to another machine 4. compare the checksum
-sv
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:06, seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 14:58 -0600, Bob Pierce wrote:
If apache 2.0 works with large files, then we'd be happy to mirror the dvd.iso files.
About Apache 2.2, I was referring to an extra package outside of core. But if the functionality is not needed then that's fine.
easy to test
- make a file from urandom that's 3.4GB (size of avg iso)
I don't know if this is such a good idea. dd if=/dev/zero is much faster than dd if=/dev/urandom and the output file suits your test. I'm pretty sure that if wget will fsck up the file the test will show it even if the original file was full of zeros (and BTW, make sure you are using a wget binary with LFS, or else the test is useless :)
- create a checksum of it (sha1sum thatfile)
- transfer file using wget to another machine
- compare the checksum
Mihai
-
Bob Pierce -
Mihai Maties -
seth vidal