On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:50:03PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > 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.
I'm less concerned about bandwidth (though it adds up), and more about just number of requests. At the moment, I don't think there are any issues how we do it. If the full install base of SA starts doing updates, then that could potentially impact a single server. > It's fine to use the zone for hosting, too -- at least for now. Well, that's debatable. The zone machine seems to go up and down a lot without notice. For instance, it was down long enough overnight that I got a ton of rsync errors in my inbox, and it cancelled our nightly mass-check. So it could potentially get used as a non-reliable mirror, I guess. I'm getting to the point I'd rather just stop using it for important things. <sigh> > 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. Exactly, which are all reasons why we didn't go down that path. :) For right now this isn't a big issue for us. As the use of updates increases and so on, we'll want to look at expanding our mirror base. -- Randomly Generated Tagline: Above all else -- sky.
pgpV9CE32YoRn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
