Dave Page wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>>> What we also need is a better way to update the mirrors in a timely manner.
>>> I don't see how we can do that unless we persuade all the mirrors to
>>> update more than once per day, which I doubt the larger ones will do.
>> Well, I was thinking more in terms of something in addition to the daily update,
>> such as an hourly (or less) check that would pull in any high-priority changes[1].
>> Seems that most of the time-sensitive changes we've needed affect a very small
>> subset of the pages and should not be a traffic concern. The good thing about
>> such a system is that we would not even need 100% buy-in right away - the ones
>> not implementing it would still get the daily update. Eventually we'd want to
>> strongly encourage everyone to use it, of course.
>
> A nice idea, but a good number of our mirrors are big mirrors sites who
> likely won't want to muck around with special configs for each site they
> mirror.
>
> Perhaps we could group the mirrors into 'preferred' and 'normal'
> sections, where the preferred ones are all on a 2 or 4 hour update.
I think we've discussed this before at some point, and yeah, i think
that's a good idea. At least if we can get a couple of the "big boys" in
on that update schedule - when we should have enough bw to deal with
almost everything, and keep the "smaller local mirrors" for those that
have really bad international bandwidth.
If we're going to be changing the deal around that, I think we should at
the same time require that the "preferred mirrors" also support http
downloads. We're seeing a regular trickle of people who can't download
because their firewall won't let ftp through. And frankly, most other
projects provide *only* http downloads these days ;-) Ftp doesn't really
buy you anything when you do single file downloads, and we just link to
that anyway.
(We'd of course keep the ftp as well, given that things like freebsd
ports uses them, if I'm not mistaken)
//Magnus