Rainer Meier <r.meier at wpkg.org> scritti il 06/10/2009 19.02.28 > Yes and if you have 10 machines on that DSL line it would take at > least 10x the > bandwidth of a single host. So it's anyway quite bad if every host > downloads the > package directly via DSL line. You found the problem. > Are we talking about private use or some business reason behind? Just buy a > simple Netgear ReadyNAS or Synology NAS device with rsync support > and sync your > packages weekly/monthly to that device and have the local machines installing > software from this node (just synchronize your whole WPKG share). > Such a device can be bought for less than $200 and saves you lots of headache > and keeps the DSL line free (only one single upload from your central server > needed). In addition you gain a lot of stability and it's less annoying for > users since the download/install will be quite fast from the local NAS server. You're right, but we are in a government instititution. And they prefer to save money instead buying many NAS. It's a common problem, not to us. > I only see one possibility to do it. One might synchronize the wholeWPKG share > to the local drive and then execute WPKG completely locally. > For example synchronize \\server\wpkgshare to c:\deployment\wpkg andthen have > WPKG client starting wpkg.js from c:\deployment\wpkg. Uuuuurgh... horrible. My WPKG share is about 1,5 GB. Some computers have only 20 GB (almost of them is nearly full) > The synchronization could be executed at startup while WPKG synchronization > could be done at shutdown. Really? Where's the preference on startup script execution? > But remember that this still requires each host to synchronize/download the > whole software distribution which puts some load on your DSL line. > I would rather prefer the NAS approach. but it requires, for every DSL-connected offices, to set up different package configurations. I prefer only one simple approach, instead rewriting the same wheel. |