Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:13:48 -0300 From: jonny@jonny.eng.br (Joao Carlos Mendes Luis) To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mirror Requirements - Last question? Message-ID: <20030719011348.GA48853@roma.coe.ufrj.br> In-Reply-To: <20030718181825.GD9029@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030718174703.GC9029@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <3F17FBEB.19412.3E93010D@localhost> <20030718181825.GD9029@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Somebody told me that Ken Smith said:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 01:53:47PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> > Where do the "other" mirrors fit in? Some mirrors don't even cover
> > the full production release. Just bin/floppies/tools etc.
>
> Just my opinion, open to suggestions...
>
> They fall under "Unofficial Mirrors". No mention in sysinstall or on
> the Web pages. If they're not carrying enough to cover the full
> production release then they're mirroring stuff that handles their own
> purposes. But are they carrying enough for us to suggest that users
> go there looking for stuff? That's what I'm trying to settle. What
> is the minimum amount of stuff a site should have for us to feel
> good about suggesting users go there looking for stuff?
Just for consideration: As I already said, I carry full 4.8-RELEASE,
and ISOs and dists for 5.1-RELEASE (no packages). Reason: full
packages are the biggest part of a release, and not ever fully needed
(too much bloat). As long as we keep with 2.5 ISOs (disk1, disk2 and
mini), I think this will be just ok.
For you instant reference:
roma::root i386 [1453] du -sh 4.8-RELEASE 5.1-RELEASE ISO-IMAGES/* 4.8-RELEASE/packages/.
202M 4.8-RELEASE
212M 5.1-RELEASE
1.0G ISO-IMAGES/4.8
1.1G ISO-IMAGES/5.1
5.2G 4.8-RELEASE/packages/.
roma::root i386 [1454]
As you see, a single -packages is 4 times bigger than just ISOs and
dists.
Also, I think that even primary mirrors should not be asked to
carry daily snapshots. There's not enough usage for that bandwidth
waste. People who run snapshots could go to current.freebsd.org or
stable.freebsd.org, as it used to work some time ago, and I personally
think we need no more than one of each.
I think main mirrors would carry, for all archs:
- Latest Production Release (4.8) - Full
- Latest Development Release (5.1) - Full
- Possibly, the Previous Production Release (4.7) - Dists and ISOs only?
- This would be deleted everytime a RC is released
- Distfiles - Updated once a month
- Latest Production SNAP - Dists (and packages?), updated once a month
- Latest Development SNAP - Dists (and packages?), updated once a month
- Possibly, a full open src tree for both above SNAPs, not really
needed if we have enough cvsup and cvsweb mirrors.
In the long time, we could end with a WWW page that could be
queried to find where one could find part (ISOs, Dists or Packages)
and Arch matches, for each release, and some kind of search engine
would keep even the unnofficial mirrors listed here.
Jonny
--
João Carlos Mendes Luís jonny@jonny.eng.br
Networking Engineer jonny@coe.ufrj.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030719011348.GA48853>