alternative mirrors?

manicka · 2006-04-12 11:13:49

Can anyone recommend a decent up to date mirror, that I could use for pacman. My closest mirror in Australia is fast, but not up to date, and the acrhlinux and nethat mirrors are painfully slow for me, downloading at dial-up speeds.

iphitus · 2006-04-12 12:02:58

Search the forums:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … ht=mirrors
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … ht=mirrors

the aussie mirrors blow, neither are well enough updated. I use archlinux.org at ~100KB/s on my optus cable connection, so I dont know what you mean by dialup speeds. I'd still be on dialup if it were that fast.

James

tomk · 2006-04-12 12:10:09

I seem to remember iphitus, who also comes from your neck of the woods, saying that he got good speeds from the HEANet mirror, which is based here in Ireland.

You could also try drakosha's handy mirror selection script - simple, and effective.

<edit>A bit of an overlap there - does heanet still work for you, iph?

iphitus · 2006-04-12 12:25:38

I ditched heanet. I never used it as my main repo, but I used to get nice sourceforge speeds from there.

I just use archlinux.org now, they're more than fine. Nowhere near as quick as the aussie ones, but at least theyre up to date.

codemac · 2006-04-12 19:42:16

http://mirror.cs.vt.edu/pub/ArchLinux

Dunno how well that works for aussie's, but it's solid here. :twisted: ( I live on campus ).

manicka · 2006-04-13 13:14:19

Thanks for this guys but I still have no joy. I can download from the out of date pacificnet mirror at 55-60k/bs, but the main up to date mirrors (archlinux, nethat etc) download at 6-10kb/s. I'm currently installing amarok and the kde-base libraries at this speed. It's like watching grass grow.

I really don't understand why this would be occuring. I've never struck this with any other distro I've used.

T-Dawg · 2006-04-13 21:53:29

manicka wrote:

I really don't understand why this would be occuring. I've never struck this with any other distro I've used.

Have you tried doing a bandwidth test? There are several free online.
Perhaps you have network issues instead.

matias · 2006-04-13 22:09:14

manicka wrote:

Thanks for this guys but I still have no joy. I can download from the out of date pacificnet mirror at 55-60k/bs, but the main up to date mirrors (archlinux, nethat etc) download at 6-10kb/s. I'm currently installing amarok and the kde-base libraries at this speed. It's like watching grass grow.
I really don't understand why this would be occuring. I've never struck this with any other distro I've used.

Try adding this to your /etc/pacman.conf (you'll need wget)

XferCommand = /usr/bin/wget -c %u

Greetings.

manicka · 2006-04-14 10:20:39

hmm, did several bandwidth tests on US servers with normal 50k/bs download results.

My downloads with pacman are still slow. Using wget made no significant difference.

Anything else I can try?

manicka · 2006-04-14 12:22:47

ok, I'm fairly sure that I've narrowed it down to an ftp problem. Any http mirrors I try or download from with any program are fast, while ftp is very slow.

I've switched to an http server at http://ftp.belnet.be/linux/archlinux, which seems to be reasonably up to date, but I'd still like to get to the bottom of this ftp issue.

Any thoughts on how to track down why ftp is so slow?

Lone_Wolf · 2006-04-14 20:33:22

Standard pacman wget command :

XferCommand = /usr/bin/wget --passive-ftp -c -O %o %u

from man wget :

--no-passive-ftp
Disable the use of the passive FTP transfer mode. Passive FTP mandates that the client connect to the server to establish the data connection rather than the other way around.

If the machine is connected to the Internet directly, both passive and active FTP should work equally well. Behind most firewall and NAT configurations passive FTP has a better chance of working. However, in some rare firewall configurations, active FTP actually works when passive FTP doesn't. If you suspect this to be the case, use this option, or set passive_ftp=off in your init file.

Try --no-passive-ftp .

manicka · 2006-04-14 22:51:24

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Try --no-passive-ftp .

ah, that was the key. Thanks everyone, for all your help

Arch Linux

#1 2006-04-12 11:13:49

alternative mirrors?

#2 2006-04-12 12:02:58

Re: alternative mirrors?

#3 2006-04-12 12:10:09

Re: alternative mirrors?

#4 2006-04-12 12:25:38

Re: alternative mirrors?

#5 2006-04-12 19:42:16

Re: alternative mirrors?

#6 2006-04-13 13:14:19

Re: alternative mirrors?

#7 2006-04-13 21:53:29

Re: alternative mirrors?

#8 2006-04-13 22:09:14

Re: alternative mirrors?

#9 2006-04-14 10:20:39

Re: alternative mirrors?

#10 2006-04-14 12:22:47

Re: alternative mirrors?

#11 2006-04-14 20:33:22

Re: alternative mirrors?

#12 2006-04-14 22:51:24

Re: alternative mirrors?

Board footer