[arch-dev-public] Putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold
Currently we have almost 90 active mirrors in the official mirror list and new requests for becoming an official mirror are appearing quite often. However, not all mirrors are good ones (outdated, incomplete, admins don't respond, etc). I marked inactive many of them during past months (including about 20 during FrOSCon), and will continue to do this until all of the mirrors meet the requirements. 22 mirrors that are in the official list did not move to the 2-tier scheme yet, which means we do not know where do they sync from, admins did not respond or there is no known email address of the admin. These will be removed from the list very soon. If you are using some mirror that was removed from the list recently and you know how to contact the admin - let me know. Considering the fact that there is no package signing support yet I don't see a reason why we should have that many mirrors, especially when they don't meet the requirements. Recently I had to defer some requests to become an official mirror from some private sites. I apologize that this caused a frustration of their admins and hope that the reasons are understandable. To make this fair to everyone I'm thinking about (temporary) putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Re: [arch-dev-public] Putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold
On 30 September 2010 11:41, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyryl...@gmail.com wrote: Currently we have almost 90 active mirrors in the official mirror list and new requests for becoming an official mirror are appearing quite often. However, not all mirrors are good ones (outdated, incomplete, admins don't respond, etc). I marked inactive many of them during past months (including about 20 during FrOSCon), and will continue to do this until all of the mirrors meet the requirements. 22 mirrors that are in the official list did not move to the 2-tier scheme yet, which means we do not know where do they sync from, admins did not respond or there is no known email address of the admin. These will be removed from the list very soon. If you are using some mirror that was removed from the list recently and you know how to contact the admin - let me know. Considering the fact that there is no package signing support yet I don't see a reason why we should have that many mirrors, especially when they don't meet the requirements. Recently I had to defer some requests to become an official mirror from some private sites. I apologize that this caused a frustration of their admins and hope that the reasons are understandable. To make this fair to everyone I'm thinking about (temporary) putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) Hi Roman, On the mirrors list page [1] I see 56 untiered mirrors. May we know which are the 22 you mention? Just say so if you would like some help trying to get in touch with some mirror admins. For instance I see these French or Belgian mirrors : These 2 were removed from the mirrorlist -ftp.belnet.be -ftp.free.fr And this one is 3 weeks old and untiered: -mir1.archlinux.fr I could try to mail them in French... [1] http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/ -- Guillaume
Re: [arch-dev-public] Putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Guillaume ALAUX guilla...@alaux.net wrote: On 30 September 2010 11:41, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyryl...@gmail.com wrote: Currently we have almost 90 active mirrors in the official mirror list and new requests for becoming an official mirror are appearing quite often. However, not all mirrors are good ones (outdated, incomplete, admins don't respond, etc). I marked inactive many of them during past months (including about 20 during FrOSCon), and will continue to do this until all of the mirrors meet the requirements. 22 mirrors that are in the official list did not move to the 2-tier scheme yet, which means we do not know where do they sync from, admins did not respond or there is no known email address of the admin. These will be removed from the list very soon. If they are syncing and up-to-date (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That seems pretty silly to me. We one remaining that seems to have fallen off the map (unix.pl), 5 that are out of date, and one without a lastsync file. If you are using some mirror that was removed from the list recently and you know how to contact the admin - let me know. Considering the fact that there is no package signing support yet I don't see a reason why we should have that many mirrors, especially when they don't meet the requirements. Recently I had to defer some requests to become an official mirror from some private sites. I apologize that this caused a frustration of their admins and hope that the reasons are understandable. To make this fair to everyone I'm thinking about (temporary) putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) Hi Roman, On the mirrors list page [1] I see 56 untiered mirrors. May we know which are the 22 you mention? Just say so if you would like some help trying to get in touch with some mirror admins. You probably missed the active column there. For instance I see these French or Belgian mirrors : These 2 were removed from the mirrorlist -ftp.belnet.be -ftp.free.fr And this one is 3 weeks old and untiered: -mir1.archlinux.fr I could try to mail them in French... No one will ever stand in your way of helping out. I'm sure you can chip in; if you start doing a lot you can probably get in the coveted Mirror Admin group. :P -Dan
[arch-dev-public] [signoff] logrotate-3.7.9-1
Upstream update. Signoff both, Allan.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 15:16, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: If they are syncing and up-to-date (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That seems pretty silly to me. No known admin email address or no response. No known upstream. I agree that these may not be very solid reasons, but I see no other way to bring things to order. If we will need to change something within our mirroring scheme (e.g. use of mirrorbrain or geodns, or some other change) - we will have the problem contacting mirror admins again. If we would not disable rsync access for non-tier1 mirrors on rsync.archlinux.org we would never hear from some mirror admins, that I was unable to contact until their mirror stopped working (and BTW, some didn't even notice that at all). It may be that my frustration influences my view, so if you think I'm totally wrong - I will keep things as they are now. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Re: [arch-dev-public] Putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyryl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 15:16, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: If they are syncing and up-to-date (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That seems pretty silly to me. No known admin email address or no response. No known upstream. I agree that these may not be very solid reasons, but I see no other way to bring things to order. If we will need to change something within our mirroring scheme (e.g. use of mirrorbrain or geodns, or some other change) - we will have the problem contacting mirror admins again. If we would not disable rsync access for non-tier1 mirrors on rsync.archlinux.org we would never hear from some mirror admins, that I was unable to contact until their mirror stopped working (and BTW, some didn't even notice that at all). It may be that my frustration influences my view, so if you think I'm totally wrong - I will keep things as they are now. First, I 100% understand the frustration. I'm only saying keep it in perspective- if we end up making a change that breaks these mirrors that have gone MIA, that is fine, and indicates forward progress on some other front. But breaking them on purpose just seems silly, if there is no need (read: forward progress) to. If we ever do mirrorbrain or geodns, then we can make the necessary changes at that time rather than doing anything ow when (as far as I'm aware) nothing big is on the horizon, or needs to be. I'd propose leaving these untended mirrors in the list, but *only* if they magically stay up to date and relatively pain-free. If they begin to lag, then mark them as inactive and they will no longer be on the official list. -Dan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Mirror status page
Suggestions and things are quoted below. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Sander Jansen s.jan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Dan, Just nitpicking here: putting Unknown into the columns messes up sorting for certain columns. For example when sorting the out-of-sync mirrors by score, from best-to-worst, it will put the unknowns on top e.g best. It would make more sense to put them on the bottom e.g. worst. Thanks! Fixed locally and will get pushed out. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:52:55 -0500, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Pierre Schmitz pie...@archlinux.de wrote: * You should rethink about putting those equations into yellow boxes with a bigger font size. They are not really the most important content on that site. This really has more to do with the theme/styling on the entire side and less to do with this page. I honestly don't think it distracts too much, but if a lot of people do we should adjust the theme. It is odd that the tt/ and code/ tags don't really match up; you can see I used both of them. Should I just switch to tt/ everywhere? No idea. But I'd reduce the font size to match the one from the surrounding text. It's not distracting, but clearly highlighted. But I don't care that much about this... tt/ everywhere it is. * One should add to the μ Delay that it has an error of about an hour (=frequency of your cron job). Especially those with a delay of less than an hour sync hourly for real. I'm not sure I follow your logic- if they sync on the top of the hour, then we're pretty close to the average delay, which is halfway between 0-59 minutes anyway. I think it might be worth scheduling the cronjob in a slightly different way to not give any mirror an advantage. If we sync on the following schedule (13 times in 12 hours), no one time would get the benefit: 0:04 0:59 1:54 2:49 3:45 4:40 5:35 6:30 7:26 8:21 9:16 10:11 11:07 Sounds confusing of course, but would this make things better? Should work. Another option would beto just round up the values to hours. This should all be taken care of. * Make the mirror urls clickable I thought of this, but not sure what to click through to. We can easily do a mirror info page, but we can't/shouldn't show everything publicly. I was more thinking about just putting an a tag around the url. :-) Seems a bit silly to link to the mirror itself only because there isn't much of use there. If you want a package, we have the download package link, etc. But there are some more changes coming that expose the mirror objects a bit more publicly via /mirrors/. * Would be nice if you could use the iso country names. E.g. its not Great Britain but United Kingdom or Russian Federation instead of Russia. We've been using these same names for ages. I can give you permission to go in and update things as you see fit if you'd like- the country is just freeform right now, there aren't choices. So I could just update these values in the db without any side effects? Getting this tied to an actual country object could make GeoIP integration of some sort be useful later down the road. That was my intention. Haven't seen any progress on this. :) I'm going to push the remaining changes public soon, and then publish a news item if that is OK highlighting the new page. If there are any more objections or feedback please get it in now. -Dan
