On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Andrew Kenna wrote: > I guess another question I'll ask, how are we going to define high > quality mirrors ? > > A) Based on bandwidth
it would certainly be one of the factors. i think the primary ones would be o bandwidth o ability to carry a complete mirror - e.g about 15G of disk space to cover every apache project ? plus the daily updates that entails. o ability to refresh more than daily - perhaps to implement a ssh based signalling system similar to that in use by gnome and other projects, to pull updates when they are in place on the master site o ability to act as a propagation server - e.g running rsync for other downstream mirrors o responsiveness of admin contact required to deal with mirror issues > B) whether the person relies on pre-packaged binaries to update their > web site or goes out downloads the source and compiles it themselves ? i personally disagree strongly about individual "mirrors" doing this because then they are no longer mirrors. if people are providing binaries they should be submitting them to the official site where it then propagates out to all the other mirrors. > C) Restrict the number of mirrors in each country to say 4 4 might be a bit small, but i guess there might be some policy there. in the US it might make sense to have 15 mirrors. in australia 6. in Tibet, 2. it would be a (clearly understood) function of network and demand (number of internet users) in that region. regards, -jason
