[ooo-dev only] Masterful reply - now that, IMHO, is how to disagree politely. I learned something today. Thanks also for trying to accurately reflect the different views expressed here.
Ross On 15 April 2012 19:28, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 23:15 +0200, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Peter Pöml wrote: >> > Am 03.04.2012 um 18:17 schrieb Roberto Galoppini: >> >> >> We at SourceForge have worked the last ten days to line-up dedicated >> >> infrastructure (including CDN services) to support the upcoming AOO >> >> download serving test. >> > >> > I can hardly believe reading this! >> >> Me too. What an ignorance of proven and waiting mechanisms. > > Hello Eberhard, > > I see that your email account was not registered with the mailing list, > as it was moderated through, so will leave all the CC addresses in > place. > > Additionally I will assume you have not followed the exchange which did > take place on this list since Peter's mail arrived. Though I believe a > reasonable decision has been reached already within the project during > the exchange I'll try to recap, without attempt to re-open the decision. > [of course the ml archive is publicly available, also] > > First - thank you for your contributions, from myself and I'm sure other > individuals whom have benefited from the use of OpenOffice.org. > > Secondly, your contributions have been, as you say, over a long period > of time and it is appropriate to view the decisions required with a long > term focus. No maxim of time is more true perhaps, then: the only > constant over time is change. > > It appears from my perspective of one person watching the transformation > here that the folks in the foundation have certainly extended a hand > towards bringing the mirrorbrain system into the existing > infrastructure. This point I want to emphasize, the ASF is a very > capable, well established community and infrastructure. They did indeed > take on the responsibility for seeing that the functioning of the > project proceed, best as possible, going forward. There is no guarantees > in life of course but, given the track record your email highlights and > that of the ASF, there is every reason to believe 'forward' here will be > another 20 years. > > It also seems to me that from the perspective of anyone wanting to > assist with the project going requires recognizing that in many basic > decisions a view towards openoffice alone is now too self centered. > > Which is all a long way to get to the fact that IMO, after Peters email > from a few days back the group did stop and look, with with a direct eye > to the task at hand, now. The next release candidate is forming now. > > To my view the most important email in this thread was Joe's last. I > hasten to add that there is a mirrors mail list which I'm not, > correctly, subscribed to. I do though monitor the general infrastructure > list in addition to the main project lists. > > Joe (the ASF infrastructure team in general also) has asked a number of > times for contact and more direct engagement with regards to the > mirrorbrain admin functions. Sure seems that way, and I can't say that > I've seen much of that coming back. > > The decision, and one needed to be made, includes that mirrorbrain will > be used for this coming release. I would suggest that the very first > task is to stop with that _and_ focus on making that happen with the > mirrorbrain network, in the context of the new reality that OpenOffice > is part of larger working community now. > > As it stands the decision is also to end using mirrorbrain going forward > from there, and again I'd say that IMO from following the mailing lsits, > it seems like the appropriate decision at the moment. > > I'd also add by way of hearkening back to my first point - the only > constant over time is change. mirrorbrain is not defined by openoffice > distribution alone, nor can anyone say how quickly this project will > move from 3.4 to 4.0, so who knows what time holds - but what is for > sure, the best thing for everyone concerned, both today and for > tomorrow, is for Peter and others I would hope, to engage directly with > Joe and the other ASF admins to work on the task at hand, now. > > Those are my thoughts on this of course at this point, I truly can't see > what benefit continuing this mail thread would be, but do hope Peter and > others are quick to be working with the admin's for the benefit of this > release. > > Best wishes, > > //drew > >> >> > What's going on? We have an existing (and well working) mirror network, >> > that handles any required load just fine. It's proven and time-tested. >> > It has survived all releases with ease. By all calculation, and by >> > practical experience, the combined upload capacity of the mirrors is >> > sufficient to satisfy the peak download demand as well as the sustained >> > demand. By the way, the "peak download demand" doesn't really differ a >> > lot from the day-to-day download demand, contrary to public belief. The >> > mirrors are numerous and spread around the world, and the chance of a >> > client being sent to a close and fast mirror is good - better than with >> > a handful of mirrors as is the case with the Sourceforge mirror network. >> > Sourceforge specializes in something different - providing a myriad of >> > small files by a set of specialized mirrors. "Normal", plain simple >> > mirrors can't take part in this network as far as I can tell. >> >> Yes. I had tried to help with ftp5.gwdg.de - impossible "unconditionally". >> >> > Even though the network was considerably extended a few years ago, from >> > 10 (under 10?) to >20 mirrors, this is still a small number of mirrors. >> > (Even though these are power-mirrors, but those are part of our existing >> > mirror network just as well.) >> > >> > With our mirror network, mirrors can mirror partial content, so they can >> > provide what's important in their region, like certain language packs >> > only. This greatly increases the likelyhood of finding mirrors in remote >> > areas, that don't have hundreds of gigabytes to spare. It's also >> > unnecessary that mirrors carry old releases that are infrequently >> > downloaded. Mirrors can run whatever HTTP software they prefer, not only >> > Apache httpd, or even FTP servers. Mirrors can decide to offer mirroring >> > only in their network/autonomous system/country to limit the share of >> > requests they get, and from where they get it. Many mirrors don't have >> > good international connectivity, but can be used well with us >> > nevertheless. We provide cryptohashes, Metalinks, even P2P links, all >> > fully automatically. That's very important for these unusually large >> > files. Downloading without error correction is not fun. We select >> > mirrors by GeoIP, but also by geographical distance as well as network >> > topology, whatever gives a close match, and we already support IPv6. >> > >> > It has taken some years to build all this, and a lot of the features >> > were triggered directly by the work on the OpenOffice.org redirector. >> > Built for OpenOffice.org >> > >> > The software is the one kind of work that went into it, finding and >> > collecting mirrors the other thing, building trust and lasting >> > relationship. A mirror network isn't built overnight. >> > >> > I think there is a danger that the Apache mirror network is equated with >> > the OOo mirror network. This is a mistake in my view. The large files >> > that we have are a totally different challenge. It's a huge difference >> > to download 6MB tarballs and 200MB files, both from the users >> > perspective ("why does my file not work, that I waited so long for!?") >> > and from the mirrors perspective ("what are these 200 connections from >> > Chinese IPs on my mirror server!?"). It is important to be able to give >> > mirrors different weight, because they differ vastly in their >> > capabilities, which can range from 4GBit bandwidth down brittle to >> > 50Mbit somewhere else. Even inside an "Internet country" like Germany >> > you'll have differences of 100 MBit to multiple Gbit, and you want to >> > utilize the bandwidth well. We have this working well! >> >> I can confirm this, I have watched the growing "intelligence" of >> MirrorBrain from the beginning. >> >> > OpenOffice.org used a software called "Bouncer" before switching to >> > MirrorBrain, which was one of the simpler solutions. I think everybody >> > (who has been in the project a few years) will agree that we don't want >> > to go back. >> >> Surely. The OpenOffice step from bouncer to mirrorbrain was all over >> agreed a performance and quality step. >> >> BTW, dear Apache people, I am the one that helped StarOffice Hamburg to >> publish their first opensource release - maintainer of ftp.gwdg.de since >> 20 years. >> >> > So I see that Sourceforge wants to beef up their network by renting a >> > Content Delivery Network (CDN). Is that needed? yes, because they don't >> > have enough bandwidth in mirrors. Is that a good idea? I don't think so, >> > but I'm biased, because 1) I don't like advertisements and 2) I'm >> > strongly rooted in the mirror community with both legs. >> >> Didn't mirrorbrain lately help Novell to save a lot of money they >> regularly had spended to Akamai before? I guess it was this way. >> >> > In the mirror community, there is a kind of self esteem among the more >> > ambitious mirror admins: they believe that stepping in of commercial >> > CDNs is not needed to handle even peak download demand of the most >> > popular Open Source software. And they work hard for it. >> >> Yes, we do. All mirror admins love to see their lines full. That is the >> temporary excitement we are struggling for. Mirrorbrain can give us this >> picture at the spot moments without frustrating any single user. >> >> > Together, we have proven that the help of commercial CDNs is *not* >> > needed, both with OpenOffice.org and with OpenSUSE.org. Mirrors have >> > served > 20 GByte per second together. The bandwidth is there! (In the >> > past, Akamai was used during release peaks with OpenSUSE.org, so I have >> > been there, and also got interesting insight and numbers there.) >> > >> > I tried the currently configured download from >> > http://www.openoffice.org/download today (from a real crappy end user >> > box ;). It was slow and didn't start downloading immediately, but showed >> > a page full of advertisement that didn't have any relation to >> > OpenOffice.org, wanted to open a popup (MS IE said that and blocked it) >> >> Hey, Peter, you and MS IE - what's going on? Are you letting others to >> drive you crazy? >> >> > and when the download started, it came from the Swiss mirror, but I'm in >> > Germany! What's that? Thrown 3 years back in time? Sub-optimal. (I can >> > guess who pays for the CDN that is rented to help out: advertising.) >> > >> > Do you really want to ditch what we have built? Ditching the system that >> > improved downloading OpenOffice.org in the farthest corners of the >> > world? Exchanging it against a handful of Sourceforge mirrors, and 250 >> > Apache mirrors, many of which lack the capability? Some are big, but >> > many will be far from having the bandwidth to deliver large files. >> > >> > Something that Apache's mirror system also can't do is sending me to my >> > local mirror (my very ISP in my city runs a mirror, and my home IP is in >> > their netblock). Apache mirror system sends me to *any* mirror in my >> > country, while our current solution recognizes the network topology and >> > lets me download from the local mirror. Especially with large files, >> > that's very nice both for the ISP and for me as user. Sourceforge can >> > theoretically do this (because they use a part of MirrorBrain for that >> > purpose!) but don't have enough mirrors to play this out. This is not >> > only useful with single ISPs, if they have a mirror; it's also useful >> > with autonomous systems (AS) of networks that share a backbone, like >> > most German universities in AS680 here in Germany. >> >> The german university network (DFN-Verein, some members already are >> "producing" 10 gbit) was the base infrastucture for the openoffice >> spreading (and staroffice before, and is now already with libreoffice >> too). >> >> Please don't neglect this chance for the Apache Foundation. It clearly is >> offered (and - regarding ftp.gwdg.de and many more - since the beginning >> of Apache practized). >> >> > So we will have a *technically inferiour* solution in the future? That's >> > not the Apache way, is it? >> > >> > I have been told more than once, on this list, that "it will be the >> > Apache mirror system and nothing else". I didn't understand the reasons >> > (except for policy, no special treatment for individual projects), but >> > it won't work that way IMO. >> > >> > Now it seems to me that the Apache mirror system seeked the help of >> > Sourceforge.net. If that means that some doubts crept up, then I share >> > those doubts. But I don't see Sourceforge.net as the solution either, as >> > explained above. They have their merits, and I like their dedication and >> > the specialized system they've built (with features that I'm envious >> > of!), but I think our existing solution is better suited. And not only >> > that, IMO it is a very important prerequisite of being successful. No >> > well-working downloads, no luck with distributing FOSS that consists of >> > large files. >> >> Dear Apache Foundation, please listen to Peter's words and use his work. >> It will be a win for you - incredible that you did not realize that >> already by yourself. You are a "community product", and so you should help >> to show that "the community" is autonomous. >> >> >> Viele Gruesse >> Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoe...@gwdg.de, e...@kki.org) >> > > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com