Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > This does not need to really be a wrapper around cvs, folks should run > a tool 1 time to pick the best guess as to what server they should be > using, stick that value in thier cvsup file and be done with it. If > jdp calls for a ``this server is b

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey writes: : Oh. If that's a problem, it would be a fatal problem (would be for me, : sometimes). It used to be a big problem. When cvsup was first getting mirrors, some seemed to update every 15 minutes, while others updated what seemed like every two da

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 11:20 AM -0700 2000/1/24, Warner Losh wrote: > Agreed. The making lots of connections was a bad idea. However, I've > rarely seen low latency and low bandwidth go together. I have. Until recently, we had only a 512KB line between our operations facilities here in Brussels and th

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey >writes: > : Oh. If that's a problem, it would be a fatal problem (would be for me, > : sometimes). > > It used to be a big problem. When cvsup was first getting mirrors, > some seemed to update every 15 minu

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey >writes: > : That's the precise reason I suggested a system that used no probing, had > : feedback, and forced shared load in spite of user misconfiguration. Got > : shouted down. > > One reason I think that y

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey writes: : That's the precise reason I suggested a system that used no probing, had : feedback, and forced shared load in spite of user misconfiguration. Got : shouted down. One reason I think that you've been shouted down (and me too, since I had simila

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > Agreed. The making lots of connections was a bad idea. However, I've > rarely seen low latency and low bandwidth go together. I've also > problems connecting accross high loss links more often. Sure, it is a > statistical argument. > > I still think

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 02:17:54PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 11:34 PM +1300 2000/1/22, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > > This should give you a relative performance metric between the servers > > > you measured, hopefully with local network performance variations > > > cancelled out by the

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 02:17:54PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 11:34 PM +1300 2000/1/22, Joe Abley wrote: > > > This should give you a relative performance metric between the servers > > you measured, hopefully with local network performance variations > > cancelled out by the fact that al

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message Brad Knowles writes: : Doesn't work. There might be a very low latency but : low-bandwidth connection between you and one of the servers, when you : (and everyone else) would be better off if you instead connected to a : server that show

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 10:23 AM -0500 2000/1/24, Mr. K. wrote: > Why don't we use the download accelerator > (http://www.lidan.com/) methodology and make simultaneous connections to > the top 4 sites as discovered by ping? :) As mentioned before, not all sites allow ICMP packets through their networks.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Brad Knowles wrote: >At 4:43 PM -0500 2000/1/21, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >>>And to my best knowledge, BIND does not support anything >>>like that. >> >> Not directly, but I think there are ways you can have it call >> some external procedure to do "load-balancing" for an IP >> rotary. We t

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Why don't we use the download accelerator (http://www.lidan.com/) methodology and make simultaneous connections to the top 4 sites as discovered by ping? :) On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > At 5:23 PM -0800 2000/1/21, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > You don't even need to modify the

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> I'm hatching in my head a scheme as follows: you may want to take a look at keith moore's work on what he called sonar. there was code, but the internet draft seems to have expired. keith is usually available at Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. randy To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROT

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 11:34 PM +1300 2000/1/22, Joe Abley wrote: > This should give you a relative performance metric between the servers > you measured, hopefully with local network performance variations > cancelled out by the fact that all tests are run around the same time. This is a really cool ide

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 10:00 PM -0700 2000/1/21, Warner Losh wrote: > Hmmm. A thought just occurred to me. There's no need to measure > these things. Lookup all the IP addresses. Do a non blocking > connection to each of these machines. First one to come back with the > REL16_1 response wins, and all the ot

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 5:23 PM -0800 2000/1/21, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > You don't even need to modify the protocol. Just write a small > tcp program that times the 3 way handshake on open to all the > servers, take the one with the sortest time and spit that out > for the user to stuff in his cvsupfile.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 5:07 PM -0500 2000/1/21, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > As John mentioned earlier, what your probably most interested in is > patch quality (e.g., minimum packet loss) first and latency second as > far as network characteristics are concerned. Simply measure them if > you choose rather than tr

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 4:43 PM -0500 2000/1/21, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >>And to my best knowledge, BIND does not support anything >>like that. > > Not directly, but I think there are ways you can have it call > some external procedure to do "load-balancing" for an IP > rotary. We talked about doing this to add

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 06:56:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > Each host gets a value of 1 (unless you go in and tweak it). Hosts > are tried in order of their values and in some unspecified order in [...] > Each time you successfully connect, you get a bonus of B. I think you need to keep an

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brian Somers writes: : I like this idea, except that some sort of consistency is required - : ie, once I've started using cvsupX, I'd like to use it in preference : to slightly better machines unless it stays bad for some configurable : number of connections

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Before I forget: PLEASE DON'T CC ME ON YOUR REPLIES. I'LL READ THEM IN THE MAILING LIST. THANK YOU. > > Hmmm. A thought just occurred to me. There's no need to measure > > these things. Lookup all the IP addresses. Do a non blocking > > connection to each of these machines. First one to co

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes: > : "load" on the mirror. Where "load" is either one of the connection > : slots, or actual kernel resource load if I have 20% packet loss and thus > : cause a lot of retransmissions to occur. > > Hmmm. A thought just occurred to me. The

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Friday, 21 January 2000 at 11:11:40 -0800, John Polstra wrote: >> Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration >> file? > > I'll add that to the to-do list. When you get the appropriate tuit, you might also consider checking which of the list is most accessible. Gre

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > > > There are couple of RFCs on network load balancing with > > respect to servers or services and I am sure that there > > are also widely available research papers. > > Most of those concentrate on balancing the load on the server > itself. How about balancing the load on the network p

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Robin Melville wrote: >At 10:43 am -0800 21/1/00, John Polstra wrote: >>[...] we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. >>The newest, cvsup8, is a very high-capacity and well-connected site, >>yet hardly anybody is using it. Please give it a try! > >Hi > >Might it be worth

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Wes Peters wrote: >Amancio Hasty wrote: >> >> > > My only point is that the first response to a problem isn't to necessarily >> > > pull out emacs and start hacking away on code. >> > >> > Yea, it is easier to do in a regular zone file then to implement the >> > network measurement logic into cv

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

As I recall, John Polstra wrote: > In fact, the higher-numbered mirrors often have faster hardware simply > because they're newer. Also, in particular, there's nothing special > about cvsup.FreeBSD.org -- it's simply an alias for cvsup1 and it gets > its updates the same way at the same intervals

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

John Polstra wrote: > > This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people > to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US > alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. > The newest, cvsup8, is a very high-capacity and well-connected

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 01:55:51PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes: > : > Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration > : > file? > : > : I'll add that to the to-do list. > > I have a very crude script that does its own (

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 10:43:39AM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people > to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US > alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. > The newest, cvsup8, is

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 05:23:17PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > You don't even need to modify the protocol. Just write a small > tcp program that times the 3 way handshake on open to all the > servers, take the one with the sortest time and spit that out > for the user to stuff in his cvsupfi

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:20:38PM -0500, Ben Rosengart wrote: > > Anyway, if multi CNAME is no good then do: > > > > cvsup IN A198.104.92.71 ; cvsup1.freebsd.org > > cvsup IN A205.149.189.91 ; cvsup2.freebsd.org > > ... and so on > > > > This

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 10:43 am -0800 21/1/00, John Polstra wrote: >[...] we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. >The newest, cvsup8, is a very high-capacity and well-connected site, >yet hardly anybody is using it. Please give it a try! Hi Might it be worth load sharing these via duplicat

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes: : "load" on the mirror. Where "load" is either one of the connection : slots, or actual kernel resource load if I have 20% packet loss and thus : cause a lot of retransmissions to occur. Hmmm. A thought just occurred to me. There's no need

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 08:56:29PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > I guess it means, is the main component trying to be balanced the server > resources or the network resources. I may be wrong, but I think that the > server resources are more likely to be the most important bottleneck, and Not reall

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Amancio Hasty wrote: > > > > My only point is that the first response to a problem isn't to necessarily > > > pull out emacs and start hacking away on code. > > > > Yea, it is easier to do in a regular zone file then to implement the > > network measurement logic into cvsup. > > Yes, it is a rat

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:03:51PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > > > I don't know ... I think it might be a good idea for the cvsup client to > > > make a connection to a cvsup master, get redirected from that master to > > > the actual handler of t

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:03:51PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > > I don't know ... I think it might be a good idea for the cvsup client to > > make a connection to a cvsup master, get redirected from that master to > > the actual handler of the connectio

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:27:08PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > Traceroute works fine. Traceroute can be annoying to use as it is much slower. And not all routers respond "properly" to it. > If you knew the history of fadeto.blackened.com, you'd know why ICMPs > are filtered out I really don'

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > > Hi David, > > > > > > John can implement a ping echo packet protocol for cvsup whose > > > response can have "cool" information on the server. Steven's > > > book on Networking already has the code for doing network latency > > > calculations . It is more like if John has the time to implem

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 07:03:51PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > I don't know ... I think it might be a good idea for the cvsup client to > make a connection to a cvsup master, get redirected from that master to > the actual handler of the connection, and then work. That way, a config > file on the

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > Hi David, > > > > John can implement a ping echo packet protocol for cvsup whose > > response can have "cool" information on the server. Steven's > > book on Networking already has the code for doing network latency > > calculations . It is more like if John has the time to implement > > such

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> Hi David, > > John can implement a ping echo packet protocol for cvsup whose > response can have "cool" information on the server. Steven's > book on Networking already has the code for doing network latency > calculations . It is more like if John has the time to implement > such scheme

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > Possibly, being ping'able should be be a requirement to being a CVSup > mirror. I don't think it makes sense to try to dictate network policy to people who are doing the FreeBSD Project a favor. Anyway, an application-level round-trip time measurement

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 03:40:14PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > I have to agree with Amancio. Otherwise how are we to determine if > cvsup8 is worth our time? I personally will not be switching to it until > I can determine it is a better path for me. > > Possibly, being ping'able should be be

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > I have to agree with Amancio. Otherwise how are we to determine if > cvsup8 is worth our time? I personally will not be switching to it until > I can determine it is a better path for me. > > Possibly, being ping'able should be be a requirement to be

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 04:47:42PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Perhaps an option to CVSup to test a group of servers and render a "rating" > for each, or to choose a "best" one. Then an intelligent human being could > use this information to occasionally change which cvsup server they use. > > Su

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Hi David, John can implement a ping echo packet protocol for cvsup whose response can have "cool" information on the server. Steven's book on Networking already has the code for doing network latency calculations . It is more like if John has the time to implement such scheme -- Amanci

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > My only point is that the first response to a problem isn't to necessarily > > pull out emacs and start hacking away on code. > > Yea, it is easier to do in a regular zone file then to implement the > network measurement logic into cvsup. Yes, it is a rather cool idea to rotate on the cvs se

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

: > Does it matter? Who cvsup's regulary more than once or twice a day? : > Committers AFAIK do cvs directly. : I "cvs co" from my local copy of the repository, which is kept : up-to-date using cvsup. When I'm making lots of commits, I'll do 10-20 cvsups in a day, but usually it is more like 3-5

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:11:17AM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > I have been reminded that a few mirrors (cvsup8 in particular) filter > pings. Don't take ping failures as a certain indication that the > server is down. On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:22:33AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote: > So have the

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Steve Kargl wrote: > > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > > > > > You will risk hitting 2 different server in 2 rapid cvsup run's, where > > > the first may be more up to date than the next, as Jordan wrote earlier > > > in this thread ... > > > > Does it matter? Who cvsup's

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Ah, well, ok. I used it extensively with bind 8.1.2 in an internal > application in a big bank to get approx. load distribution with > Windumb clients (they always take the first record in the list > returned). > > Anyway, if multi CNAME is no good t

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > > > Second, a domain name can at most a single CNAME record associated > > > with it, and other other record types. BIND will (should) barf on a > > > zone file containing the example you listed. > > > > It does not. It will round-robin over the CNAME's. > > If it do

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On 21-Jan-00 Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jesper Skriver wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:06:40PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> > I don't see any appearant reson (short of network connectivity) that >> > one *needs* to get always the *same* server. >> >> This has been discussed regulary .

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Matthew Hunt wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:56:11PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > OK, then you should hardwire your cvsup server to cvsup[1-8]. You can > > master cvs so you can master this. > > I do. Thanks for your vote of confidence in my abilities, though. > If you meant "comm

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Second, a domain name can at most a single CNAME record associated > > > with it, and other other record types. BIND will (should) barf on a > > > zone file containing the example you listed. > > > > It does not. It will round-robin over the CNAME's. > > See the

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > Second, a domain name can at most a single CNAME record associated > > with it, and other other record types. BIND will (should) barf on a > > zone file containing the example you listed. > > It does not. It will round-robin over the CNAME's. If it does, than this is a bug in BIND. The DN

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:56:11PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > OK, then you should hardwire your cvsup server to cvsup[1-8]. You can > master cvs so you can master this. I do. Thanks for your vote of confidence in my abilities, though. If you meant "committers use cvs directly or hardwire t

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Matthew Hunt wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:39:24PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Does it matter? Who cvsup's regulary more than once or twice a day? > > Committers AFAIK do cvs directly. > > I "cvs co" from my local copy of the repository, which is kept > up-to-date using cvsup.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Jesper Skriver wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:06:40PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > I don't see any appearant reson (short of network connectivity) that > > one *needs* to get always the *same* server. > > This has been discussed regulary ... Must have been some time ago... > You wi

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > Second, a domain name can at most a single CNAME record associated > > with it, and other other record types. BIND will (should) barf on a > > zone file containing the example you listed. > > It does not. It will round-robin over the CNAME's. See the documentation for the multiple-cnames op

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > cvsup IN CNAMEcvsup1.freebsd.org. > > cvsup IN CNAMEcvsup2.freebsd.org. > > cvsup IN CNAMEcvsup3.freebsd.org. > > cvsup IN CNAMEcvsup4.freebsd.org. > > cvsup IN CNAMEcvsup5.freebsd.org. > >

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:39:24PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Does it matter? Who cvsup's regulary more than once or twice a day? > Committers AFAIK do cvs directly. I "cvs co" from my local copy of the repository, which is kept up-to-date using cvsup. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > > You will risk hitting 2 different server in 2 rapid cvsup run's, where > > the first may be more up to date than the next, as Jordan wrote earlier > > in this thread ... > > Does it matter? Who cvsup's regulary more than once or twice a d

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 11:06 PM +0100 2000/1/21, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Thats not so easy. What about this: > > > > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup1.freebsd.org. > > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup2.freebsd.org. > > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup3.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 11:06 PM +0100 2000/1/21, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Thats not so easy. What about this: > > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup1.freebsd.org. > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup2.freebsd.org. > cvsupIN CNAMEcvsup3.freebsd.org. > cvsup

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> > Maybe you should make cvsup.freebsd.org as a rotary (of sorts), > > which returns a different IP address based on the callers IP > > address. (or is that even possible?) That way, any given > > host will always try the same cvsup server, but you'll be > > spreading the load out among the se

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey >writes: > > : I would think using a fixed order would be a really bad thing, causing > > : overload of the first server in line. Did I misunderst

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 11:06:40PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > > At 10:43 AM -0800 1/21/00, John Polstra wrote: > > >This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people > > >to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US > > >a

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > At 10:43 AM -0800 1/21/00, John Polstra wrote: > >This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people > >to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US > >alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. > >The

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> A nice heuristic that attempts to minimize latency and maximize throughput > would be a nice feature to have. For extra credit, reverse entropy as well. > > Seriously, attempting to connect to a list of servers using record route > and minimizing the latency and/or hop count would be a great

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes: > : > Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration > : > file? > : > : I'll add that to the to-do list. > > I have a very crude script that does its own (fixed) round robin o

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey writes: : I would think using a fixed order would be a really bad thing, causing : overload of the first server in line. Did I misunderstand you? How about : doing a script (say in perl, it has random numbers) that randomly picks : the server from a lis

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chuck Robey >writes: > : I would think using a fixed order would be a really bad thing, causing > : overload of the first server in line. Did I misunderstand you? How about > : doing a script (say in perl, it has random n

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

John Polstra wrote: > > > Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration > > file? > > I'll add that to the to-do list. A nice heuristic that attempts to minimize latency and maximize throughput would be a nice feature to have. For extra credit, reverse entropy as well

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 9:42 PM +0100 1/21/00, Jesper Skriver wrote: >On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 03:34:42PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > At 10:43 AM -0800 1/21/00, John Polstra wrote: > > >This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get > > >people to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Polstra writes: : > Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration : > file? : : I'll add that to the to-do list. I have a very crude script that does its own (fixed) round robin of multiple servers. It tries three times fast (yes, I

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 03:34:42PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 10:43 AM -0800 1/21/00, John Polstra wrote: > >This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people > >to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US > >alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, name

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

At 10:43 AM -0800 1/21/00, John Polstra wrote: >This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people >to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US >alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. >The newest, cvsup8, is a very high-capacit

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

> Can you make cvsup accept multiple servers to try in it's configuration > file? I'll add that to the to-do list. John -- John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] John D. Polstra & Co., Inc.Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointmen

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

So have the cvsup client do the pinging to the server and extract its current work load or other vital statistic. -- Amancio Hasty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Amancio Hasty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the user does specifiy a cvsup , can you decide for the user which > server is best based upon some simple statistic? Some day I hope it's possible, but there's nothing like that implemented currently. Also there are

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote: > To choose a mirror site, try pinging the mirrors in your country. I have been reminded that a few mirrors (cvsup8 in particular) filter pings. Don't take ping failures as a certain indication that the server is down. John -- John Polstra

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 10:43:39AM -0800, John Polstra wrote: > > To choose a mirror site, try pinging the mirrors in your country. > Pick one with a low packet loss rate. The round trip time doesn't > matter very much as long as it doesn't undergo wild variations. > Second, pick a site that's n

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

If the user does specifiy a cvsup , can you decide for the user which server is best based upon some simple statistic? -- Amancio Hasty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

This is another in my series of occasional nags to try to get people to use some of the less heavily loaded CVSup mirrors. In the US alone, we have 8 mirror sites now, named (duh) cvsup[1-8].FreeBSD.org. The newest, cvsup8, is a very high-capacity and well-connected site, yet hardly anybody is us