[CentOS] yum vs up2date
Robert
kerplop at sbcglobal.netThu Sep 7 17:21:20 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
- Next message: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Matt Hyclak wrote: <snip> > There may be a valid point here. I don't help manage the centosX servers, so > I am unaware if they frequently change locations, etc. If they are > relatively static, then perhaps a naming scheme that indicates country or > continent of origin would be useful. But again - I don't think most people > care. If a server half a world away is faster, I'm going to use that one. > > Matt AAMOF, it hasn't been that many years ago that I would purposely choose a mirror halfway around the world to avoid connection limits and the slowdown that usually takes place before the absolute fixed limit is reached. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060907/edada1aa/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
- Next message: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list