Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:26:52 +0200 From: Rudolf Cejka <cejkar@fit.vutbr.cz> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Amount of stuff to upload Message-ID: <20030701172652.GA91388@fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <20030701115721.GB24724@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030701073102.GC77826@atrbg11.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> <200307010752.h617qpqN099327@lurza.secnetix.de> <20030701115721.GB24724@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken Smith wrote (2003/07/01): > My initial answer to re@ about this was that I didn't think there > would be concensus on the answer but I'd ask. I think peoples' > experiences/pain/etc. with the packages varies which is why I > thought the answers will vary. I think there is not a problem in few larger against more smaller. There is a problem in a limited mirroring throughput, which is furthermore hard to predict. It does not matter so much if there is more smaller or few larger - if any portion of ftp archive is updated and it has to be distributed as soon as possible, any other ftp updates should be simply delayed, so that mirrors have time to update it and do not start to update not so important parts. And as I think, it is hard to say any time limits - the better way is simply to check, if datas are distributed on sufficient number of observed mirrors, so that other parts of ftp archive can be updated. For example, if I want to distribude i386 packages, I should update just them and wait, until they are distributed, before I update packages for other architectures. > posted) is stuff they don't need to pay any special attention to, and > that it's only the stuff in the ports/ area that tends to choke > things? Maybe a better thing would be to say some data limit - 500 MB a day or so, which would not hurt mirrors' updating "responsivity". ... Until there is some feedback, so that people on ftp-master can check distribution state themselves :o) > IMO it might not hurt to admit to that > group a tiering structure and tell them what the Tier-1 servers are. Does anybody know, which mirrors are Tier-1 and which are Tier-2? :o))) This is any other reason for my proposals - I think, that nobody knows, which mirrors are Tier-[12], and what Tier-[12] mirrors really should be and should do/offer. -- Rudolf Cejka <cejkar at fit.vutbr.cz> http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~cejkar Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Information Technology Bozetechova 2, 612 66 Brno, Czech Republic
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030701172652.GA91388>