Thanks for the other ideas, I was trying to get people thinking of what we could use to categorse quality mirrors...
With the point of people relying on binaries, I'm reffering to people that use up2date from redhat and assume that it will update their apache daemon.. It might but it only tags the version as 1.3.22 for instance.. Or one other case I heard about in there was debian patching up 1.3.9.. I've had this discussion with Joshua before, but I think if people are serious about having a quality mirror they should download the source code from apache.org or an apache mirror.. Compile it up and be done with it. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: jason andrade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml 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
