update-website.mk and mirroring issue

Jeremy Huntwork jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Nov 24 05:45:42 PST 2004


Anderson Lizardo wrote:

>That's what I think so (BTW rsync exits really fast when nothing needs 
>update). I suppose Gerard added the timestamp check to avoid unecessary rsync 
>runs, but I don't think rsync causes too much load when nothing needs 
>syncing.
>
>I want to check this anyway. Jeremy H.: can you setup that test mirror at 
>jenacon.net (I suppose it's down, at least lfs.jenacon.net doesn't work 
>anymore)?
>  
>
I'm fairly certain that rsync is set up to work as a 'sync' by default, 
effectively negating the need for an external timestamp check (in fact, 
I've often wondered why we have it set up that way), but I can't blame 
you for wanting to test it.  I had to do some rearranging with my 
server, but I could probably have something set up for you fairly soon.

>Keep the working copy on a separate dir (e.g. /var/website_repos, I accept 
>better path suggestions) and then, after running "update-website.mk" (run by 
>a post-commit hook) on it, run rsync locally with the appropriate parameters 
>to avoid rsyncing unecessary files (something similar to update-website.mk's 
>"run-rsync" rule). It's very simple, believe me :)
>
>Advantages:
>- Keep a clean live site;
>- Avoid changing all mirror's rsync scripts;
>
>What do you guys think?
>  
>

Sounds like some good advantages.  We should test it this way first, 
too, before we implement.  Btw, what happened to the idea of using rsync 
to 'push' the site?  If we ever follow through with that, the setup on 
the mirrors would be changing slightly anyway.

--
Jeremy Huntwork



More information about the website mailing list