FWIW the ballpark figures we have today Roberto are roughly 12GB worth of release artifacts and
about100TB / day worth of download traffic. >________________________________ > From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >To: Ross Gardler <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:55 PM >Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution > >Let's leave the conversation off the infra lists >so Roberto can see them all. I'm happy to represent >infra here. > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected]; Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 3:54 PM >>Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution >> >> >>OK, Roberto is on this list, so let's see what can be worked out. My >>exploratory discussions with Roberto indicated that SF are willing to work >>with us on a decent solution. Joe can I assume you are happy to represent ASF >>infra here, or should we take it straight to the infra lists? >>Ross >>Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >>On Mar 19, 2012 6:54 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Given the initial feedback Jurgen provided on the infra lists about >>>the potential number of downloads a day and expected size of each >>>download, I think it would be prudent to take advantage of any assistance >>>sourceforge might be able to provide here. What I'm thinking is >>>some sort of hybrid approach where the "recommended" default download >>>is a sourceforge link with the Apache mirrors as auxiliary optional >>>links further down the page. >>> >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:23 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>>> From: Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Cc: >>>>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:03 AM >>>>> Subject: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution >>>>> >>>>> I just had a call with Roberto from SourceForge in which he updated me >>>>> on what they've done with the templates and extensions sites. I asked >>>>> Roberto to send a summary to this list, but I just wanted to extend my >>>>> thanks to him and the team at SourceForge, along with the people here >>>>> in AOO and ASF infra who have helped. >>>>> >>>>> Roberto also asked if there is anything SF can do to help distributing >>>>> the AOO 3.4 We've discussed this a few times but as we are now close >>>>> to a release I think it is worth recapping and making sure everything >>>>> is lined up OK. >>>>> >>>>> - what are the likely bandwidth requirements when the release goes out? >>>> >>>> As far as Infra is concerned, it will depend on the total size of the >>>> artifacts >>>> being released multiplied by the number of mirrors that need to download >>>> it from >>>> us over a 6 hour period. We are considering rate-limiting our rsync >>>> service >>>> to lower the peak bandwidth needed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - does ASF Infra feel confident the existing mirror network will support >>>> this? >>>> >>>> I'd say most mirrors won't object once we give them a heads-up about how >>>> much additional disk space and bandwidth will be required. It would help >>>> if the PPMC could provide infra with an estimate of the expected number >>>> of total downloads per day during the first week or two of release, >>>> combined >>>> with the typical download size, so we may provide that information to the >>>> mirror operators and let them decide whether to stay with us or drop out. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - can SF become a part of that mirror network in a sensible way? >>>>> - note that SF does not provide direct links to the download, they >>>>> provide an intermediate page with advertising >>>> >>>> The advertising does not exactly thrill me, and really isn't compatible >>>> with >>>> how our mirror scripts work. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - should any of the old OOo mirrors be incorporated into the ASF mirror >>>> system? >>>>> - will they want the additional overhead brought by all other ASF >>>> projects? >>>>> >>>>> My own feeling is that the ASF infra team would not really be >>>>> interesting in changing the mirror system in any way, however I am >>>>> *not* member of the infra team and cannot speak for them. Joe, of >>>>> course is. If the PPMC sees the need to explore SF hosting then I >>>>> suggest someone picks this up and liaises between ASF Infra, AOO and >>>>> SF. IF the PPMC is confident that the existing mirror system is >>>>> sufficient then no need to revisit. >>>>> >>>>> Ross >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >>>>> Programme Leader (Open Development) >>>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
