Theo Van Dinter writes: > On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:40:43AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: > > >For now, I removed them from the mirror list, so it's just my server left. > > >We > > >should figure something out for this long term. > > > > Short term, at least, I've got a server with a 1 Mbit up (8 Mbit down) > > static DSL connection with good connectivity that's pretty much idle if > > you find you need someone to share the load. > > Thanks. Right now it's not a problem, I'm more concerned with the single > server than bandwidth usage. It also makes it easier for me to figure out how > many people are doing updates. ;) > > On an aside, I noticed that someone aimed the 3.1 updates at the buildbot > machine. The current sa-update uses two different MIRRORED.BY files, one > on the main site via minotaur, and the other from a mirror server -- the > idea being we didn't want to always hit the main one when doing updates. > However, this means we have 2 independent files to maintain. Have to think > about that a bit.
the two MIRRORED.BY files should be on the same machine, alright. since the get uses If-Modified-Since, it should be fine bandwidth-wise. It's fine to use the zone for hosting, too -- at least for now. Perhaps we need to investigate using the Apache mirrors to distribute updates? There are a lot of issues involved there, though -- in particular, since we generate two new (smallish) archives per day, that's going to put a lot of load on archive.apache.org (where old files on www.apache.org/dist are archived). Also, the Apache mirrors are really quite slow to update, when you're talking about the resolution required for sa-updates. the good news is that MIRRORED.BY means that we have a lot of flexibility here. --j.
