Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:42:37 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: Valentin Nechayev <netch@lucky.net> Cc: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Subject: Re: article.sgml - Formalize Requirements? Message-ID: <20030715154237.GL11840@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20030715151507.GF43099@lucky.net> References: <20030703230739.GA1467@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20030710010301.GA8072@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20030715151507.GF43099@lucky.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:15:07PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote: > Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 21:03:01, kensmith wrote about "Re: article.sgml - Formalize Requirements?": > > > Requirements of Tier-1 Mirror Sites > > ----------------------------------- > > > 4) IF this site allows sync's from Tier-2 sites then: > > If this site doesn't allow sync from tier-2 sites, what is its purpose? > (Below it is said that tier-2 site may sync from ftp-master, may from other.) > Well, what "tier-1" and "tier-2" means here? > For now I see that if you have formalizations for these terms, they are > non-obvious. The distinction would be how long after bits get posted to ftp-master they can be expected to be on this machine. A Tier-1 site would wind up having them before a Tier-2 site for the most part. Exactly how long it takes the bits to appear on a site after they get posted to ftp-master is of interest to re@ during the beta cycles because they'd like their beta testers to have as much time as possible to test/debug. My thought was that they could list the Tier-1 sites in their announcements to the beta testers, saying that this set of machines is where the bits are most likely to appear first. I didn't want to *require* that a Tier-1 site be willing to have Tier-2 sites feeding from it because this would require some extra administrative overhead. This also is why it would be good if Tier-1 sites carry "everything", so that the beta testers are reasonably sure the site would have whatever they're testing. > > 2) Site admin on hubs@ as well as mirror-announce@. > > 3) Carry everything. > > What is reason for carrying everything? > E.g. I don't know any real need for architectures other than i386 > in our region (Ukraine). Answered above I think, let us know if it's not clear. I do think we need to come up with a reasonable definition of "everything", that is kind of an open issue. IMO we should only have re@ make a distinction between Tier-1's and Tier-2's as part of the *beta* announcements and they should not make any such distinction for the release announcements. > > Requirements of Tier-2 Mirror Sites > > ----------------------------------- > > > 1) Sync from an ftp-master* site or a Tier-1 site, preferrably a > > Tier-1. > > Well, ftp-master* are other than Tier-1? What's the difference > between Tier-1 mirror and regional ftp-master? Yes, ftp-master* would probably be considered Tier-0, and I think we should consider the regional ftp-masters as Tier-0 (where ftp-masters only allow connects from Official Mirror Sites and nothing else, if they allow connects from other sites then they're a Tier-1). -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030715154237.GL11840>