Hi, sajolida wrote (14 Feb 2016 15:01:17 GMT) : > intrigeri: >> sajolida wrote (13 Feb 2016 12:49:46 GMT) : >>> B. People with no JavaScript, wget, etc. It seems like we need the >>> minimal DNS pool if we want to support these anyway. >> >> Sure, we will need this pool anyway. >> >> But the less we rely on that DNS pool, the better: the less load we >> put on it (i.e. the less users we send to it), the more reliable it >> is, and the less daily maintenance effort is required. This is >> especially true until we have recruited very fast and reliable mirrors >> to put into this pool. >> >> Now, indeed it may be more worth our time to go after such new >> mirrors, than writing code to workaround the lack thereof :)
> :) What would this be? > A. Do stats on faster mirror as reported by check-mirrors. Yes, we can do that for our current set of mirrors. > B. Do stats on mirrors with less incidents in the mirrors Git repo. Yes. > or you are thinking about recruiting new mirrors we don't yet have in > the pool? Also this, yes. (This is why I've started the discussion about dropping the requirement for OpenPGP communication with mirror operators.) > To do this I can dig check-mirrors reports from my trash (1069!) and > compile some stats over the last two years. I don't think it's worth the effort to go back in the past: IMO for (A) we can just check the _current_ state of our mirrors. But if you're excited by this idea and wants to put extra effort into it, well, the better :) > I guess that, as time goes by, we will still be able to silently modify > the DNS pool for example to add fast and reliable mirrors from the JS > pool or to remove flaky ones. But we should be able to do this very > rarely compare to the maintenance work we do nowadays. That's what I hope too. Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
