Обсуждение: ftp.postgresql.org vs. ftp-archives.postgresql.org
In parallel with the final work on the new website infrastructure, we've also been preparing a new ftpsite infrastructure. The servers behind it are live already if you access ftp.postgresql.org, however on Sunday when we switchover to the new website infrastructure, these servers will become our primary downloads site eliminating the mirror selection flags pages that date back 15 years or more(!) Related to this, the following question has been posed... Many moons ago, the FTP site was split into 2, ftp.postgresql.org and ftp-archives.postgresql.org. In the new infrastructure, the ftp site runs on 3 servers, whilst the ftp-archives are on a single server. It has been suggested that we merge the two hierarchies back together, and then run all four servers as ftp.postgresql.org. Current sizes, in case anyone wants to know: ftp.postgresql.org: 9.1GB ftp-archives.postgresql.org: 17GB Current traffic is much harder to measure meaningfully, as ftp.postgresql.org currently gets very little traffic as we direct most of it to third party mirrors. Suffice it to say though, that ftp-archives gets file downloads in the double-digits most days, so the load there is trivial. So, should we merge the trees back together, and get rid of ftp-archives.postgresql.org? I'm +1, fwiw. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:55 +0000, Dave Page wrote: <snip> > So, should we merge the trees back together, and get rid of > ftp-archives.postgresql.org? I'm +1, fwiw. +1 from me, too. BTW, I'm assuming that we will keep ftp-archives address, so that the links in the archives, etc. won't be broken. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
2011/11/25 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:55 +0000, Dave Page wrote: > > <snip> > >> So, should we merge the trees back together, and get rid of >> ftp-archives.postgresql.org? I'm +1, fwiw. > > +1 from me, too. BTW, I'm assuming that we will keep ftp-archives > address, so that the links in the archives, etc. won't be broken. I hadn't considered that, but yes, we can of course. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Friday, November 25, 2011, Dave Page wrote:
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
2011/11/25 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>:
> On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:55 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So, should we merge the trees back together, and get rid of
>> ftp-archives.postgresql.org? I'm +1, fwiw.
>
> +1 from me, too. BTW, I'm assuming that we will keep ftp-archives
> address, so that the links in the archives, etc. won't be broken.
I hadn't considered that, but yes, we can of course.
I'm +1 as well. We *can* measure the load on the archives server, and it's very low (it seems to peak around 1Mbit/sec, and that's very rare).
But we should probably wait until after we know the load on the new ftp boxes - just to be on the safe side. Should be easy enough to do it as two steps, right?
//Magnus
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
2011/11/25 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>: > On Friday, November 25, 2011, Dave Page wrote: >> >> 2011/11/25 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: >> > On Fri, 2011-11-25 at 09:55 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> >> So, should we merge the trees back together, and get rid of >> >> ftp-archives.postgresql.org? I'm +1, fwiw. >> > >> > +1 from me, too. BTW, I'm assuming that we will keep ftp-archives >> > address, so that the links in the archives, etc. won't be broken. >> >> I hadn't considered that, but yes, we can of course. >> > I'm +1 as well. We *can* measure the load on the archives server, and it's > very low (it seems to peak around 1Mbit/sec, and that's very rare). Yeah, I was referring to our current inability to get accurate ftp. numbers. > But we should probably wait until after we know the load on the new ftp > boxes - just to be on the safe side. Should be easy enough to do it as two > steps, right? Yeah, I wasn't planning on doing anything until sometime next week anyway. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company