[wellylug] updating vs bandwidth

[David Antliff]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 14:09, Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net> wrote:
> David Antliff <david.antliff at gmail.com> writes:
>> I've been through all this exercise several times in the last ten years with
>> Debian, Ubuntu and even something similar with Gentoo once.  I've written
>> rsync scripts, messed around with my own apt proxy, and believe me,
>> apt-cacher is *the* way to go.
>
> FWIW, we dropped that in favour of apt-cacher-ng, since apt-cacher would lock
> up under sufficient load and stop responding.  Not nice when your production
> network suddenly all start complaining about being unable to check for
> updates...

Cool - I knew there'd be a good reason why someone bothered to write
-ng but I'd never hit that myself. Good to know.


> One of the other reasons I like apt-cacher-ng is that it supports acting as a
> regular old HTTP proxy for your apt clients; you can simply add this to your
> apt configuration and no other changes are needed:
>
>    Acquire::HTTP::Proxy "http://your-apt-cacher-ng-servr:3142/"

You've reminded me that you can do a similar thing with vanilla
apt-cacher too, but either way it's a pretty easy set-up :)

Would you agree that apt-cacher(-ng) is probably the best current
solution to the original problem?

-- David.