Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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 address a

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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 idea!

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Randy Bush
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Mr. K.
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

2000-01-24 Thread Damon M. Conway
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 talked about

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Brad Knowles
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

2000-01-24 Thread Warner Losh
In message v0422080db4b2007302f4@[195.238.1.121] 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 shows

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Joe Abley
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 all tests

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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 all

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Chuck Robey
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 that

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Warner Losh
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 similar

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Chuck Robey
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 you've

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Chuck Robey
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 minutes,

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-24 Thread Warner Losh
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-23 Thread Brian Somers
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-23 Thread John Polstra
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 come

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-23 Thread Warner Losh
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

2000-01-23 Thread Tim Vanderhoek
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

2000-01-22 Thread Robin Melville
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 duplicate

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Joe Abley
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 is legal, is

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Joe Abley
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 cvsupfile.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
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 a

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Pat Wendorf
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

2000-01-22 Thread Chad R. Larson
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

2000-01-22 Thread Damon M. Conway
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 cvsup. Yes, it is

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Damon M. Conway
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 load

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Amancio Hasty
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 paths, I

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-22 Thread Greg Lehey
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. Greg --

Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread John Polstra
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Amancio Hasty
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Josef Karthauser
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 not

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread John Polstra
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

2000-01-21 Thread John Polstra
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 some

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Amancio Hasty
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

2000-01-21 Thread John Polstra
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 "Disappointment

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Warner Losh
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

2000-01-21 Thread Garance A Drosihn
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

2000-01-21 Thread Wes Peters
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

2000-01-21 Thread Chuck Robey
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Chuck Robey
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 of

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Louis A. Mamakos
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

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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 newest,

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Jesper Skriver
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 alone, we have

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andrew Reilly
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 misunderstand you?

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Louis A. Mamakos
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 servers.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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.freebsd.org.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Steve Kargl
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 day?

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Matthew Hunt
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

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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. cvsup

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread sthaug
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 option in

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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 will risk

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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. OK, then

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Matthew Hunt
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Louis A. Mamakos
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 DNS is

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
[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 documentation

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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 "committers

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread John Baldwin
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 ... Must

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
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 does, than this

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Ben Rosengart
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 then

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Wes Peters
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 regulary more than

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread David O'Brien
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

2000-01-21 Thread Warner Losh
: 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

2000-01-21 Thread Amancio Hasty
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 servers

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Amancio Hasty
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

2000-01-21 Thread Brooks Davis
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. Such a

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Ben Rosengart
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

2000-01-21 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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 You

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Amancio Hasty
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

2000-01-21 Thread David O'Brien
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

2000-01-21 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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

2000-01-21 Thread David O'Brien
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't

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Chuck Robey
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 connection, and

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
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

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Wes Peters
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 rather cool idea

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread David O'Brien
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 really.

Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly

2000-01-21 Thread Warner Losh
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