I guess another question I'll ask, how are we going to define high quality mirrors ?
A) Based on bandwidth B) whether the person relies on pre-packaged binaries to update their web site or goes out downloads the source and compiles it themselves ? C) Restrict the number of mirrors in each country to say 4 D) I'm sure there are some other ideas, but these are some of the things I thought I'd throw into the discussion Andrew -----Original Message----- From: jason andrade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > As a mirror maintainer, I prefer having old releases. i'll second this point. > the kinds of mirrors we want. In other words: Fewer high-quality > mirrors is better than many medium-quality mirrors. I'd rather see 10 > official mirrors sync'ing everything than 100 mirrors doing partial > sync'ing. ditto. having a huge number of mirrors is unfortunately only making the management issue much more difficult and the cost/benefit analysis in terms of efficiency actually starts falling at a certain point. in particular because o the apache pages are not optimized to make best use of mirrors. this is just going to need a lot of work because this only works well when setup this way from scratch. no criticism implied of people who have set it up. o lots of external places also just point directly at apache.org's download area anyway. regards, -jason
