Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-28 Thread Jacob S. Barrett
I am not sure if this will work or not since I haven't tried it, but what about taking advantage of this: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/28/2330252&tid=95&tid=218 If you could use this URL to get the database it should work. http://database.clamav.net.nyud.net:8090/ Also, I could

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-26 Thread Matthew Keller
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:28, Mitch (WebCob) wrote: <..snip..> > Perhaps (not sure of the DNS system in place) could be arranged so that 10% > of the requests a full primary mirror receives could be directed to a > secondary level mirror. With a committment of only roughly 10GB per month, > we'd get

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-26 Thread Lionel Bouton
Mitch (WebCob) wrote the following on 08/26/2004 10:47 AM : -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Toal Aren't we missing something obvious here? Shouldn't we be using some sort of distributed technology like BitTorrent? That's been as

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-26 Thread Mitch \(WebCob\)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham > Toal > > Aren't we missing something obvious here? Shouldn't we be using some > sort of distributed technology like BitTorrent? > That's been asked and answered... Bittorrent is meant to optimi

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Graham Toal
> In fact that is why I chose to use the term franchisee earlier - so far > I've described only the first layer in all of this. A full working model > would be a tree structure not unlike the Amway model. Only without the > huckstering. > Associate it with a business model that creates revenue for

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Damian Menscher
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Dennis Peterson wrote: > Tim Howell said: > > > > I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than > > I've got available. > > Those figures don't account for clever scripting that some folks are > willing to implement that defeat the round-robin distribu

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Dennis Peterson
Tim Howell said: > > > I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than > I've got available. > Those figures don't account for clever scripting that some folks are willing to implement that defeat the round-robin distribution now in place. If you have a faster than average

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Dennis Peterson
Graham Toal said: >> Currently each mirror contributes around 100GB of traffic monthly >> >> Perhaps (not sure of the DNS system in place) could be arranged so that >> 10% >> of the requests a full primary mirror receives could be directed to a >> secondary level mirror. With a committment of only

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Graham Toal
> Currently each mirror contributes around 100GB of traffic monthly > > Perhaps (not sure of the DNS system in place) could be arranged so that 10% > of the requests a full primary mirror receives could be directed to a > secondary level mirror. With a committment of only roughly 10GB per month, >

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Mitch \(WebCob\)
> I would love to setup a mirror, but 10Mbps and 100GB/month is more than > I've got available. > > --TWH By my count that makes 5 of us I recall seeing volunteer and it isn't even an option yet. As we are already trampling the rules with cnames to cnames... what about this... the second tier cna

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Tim Howell
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote: >> It would help if you could define what you mean by a second-tier mirror. >> If you allow just anyone to connect, then what makes you second-tier >> instead of primary-tier? And if you restrict your connections to come >> from within your domain,

RE: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Mitch \(WebCob\)
> > > Someone recently suggested the idea of allowing sites with > less than the > > > mirror site requirements becoming second-tier mirrors. This thread is > > > an attempt to see what kind of interest there is in such an > idea and for > > > the developers to respond whether or not the idea has

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-25 Thread Damian Menscher
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Damian Menscher wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tim Howell wrote: > > > Someone recently suggested the idea of allowing sites with less than the > > mirror site requirements becoming second-tier mirrors. This thread is > > an attempt to see what kind of interest there is in such

Re: [Clamav-users] Second-tier Mirrors...

2004-08-23 Thread Damian Menscher
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Tim Howell wrote: > Someone recently suggested the idea of allowing sites with less than the > mirror site requirements becoming second-tier mirrors. This thread is > an attempt to see what kind of interest there is in such an idea and for > the developers to respond whether