SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

September 2010

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Arnau Bria <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Arnau Bria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:56:21 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:48:21 +0100 (BST)
Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:

Hi,

> I'd never heard of mrepo or cobbler, but
> I think you are working at a different level from the SL docs.

Yep.
 
> The SL doc recommends ftp and especially rsync as ways of
> *transferring* updates from the master to the mirror.
> 
> A quick look at the instructions for mrepo or cobbler suggests
> that they are tools for serving mirrored data and that they can
> both use rsync to collect updates from the master.
Exactly. Maybe my question was not clear enough.

My question was: why SL recommends "low level" tools and not "advanced"
ones? Is there any problem with mrepo (which also does a cretearepo) ?
Is a simple rsync/ftp the best way for doing the mirror?

We're using mrepo (with createrepo) and we're moving to cobbler (a
higher level tool for repos/distro/install...) and we can sleect
a new way for mirroring distros. So, if mrpeo (with its createrepo,
blah, blah...) is not recommmended, we're on time to change to pure
rsync/ftp.

Sorry if I did not ask my question propertly in my first mail.


Cheers,
Arnau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2