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
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
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
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.
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
78 matches
Mail list logo
