Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <sc...@open-vote.org>: >> Ben Klein wrote: >>> 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <sc...@open-vote.org>: >>>> Austin English wrote: >>>>> Since when is a mirror a bad thing? >>>>> >>>> It isn't, of course, however it can't replace the role of apt server >>>> (which would require users to manually alter their sources.list file). >>> Just like how they have to alter their sources.list to get to >>> budgetdedicated in the first place? The point is that they have a >>> backup solution for when the main apt server is down. >>> >>> Note that Debian mirrors are apt mirrors and are occasionally out of >>> sync - c'est la vie - and the installer actually asks you what mirror >>> you want to use so it can configure sources.list. >>> >> The budgetdedicated actually was mirrored for a while (using nslookup >> round-robin redirection) and it created a bunch of problems. > > So don't do nslookup round-robin redirection. It's silly for mirrors. > The point of a mirror is you have a completely distinct server > somewhere else that provides the same data, thus creating data > security. If the main server is down, the mirror can be accessed - but > yes, it has to be explicitly accessed (by a modified sources.list in > an apt mirror). >
I do keep a local mirror of all the content, and as of now I actually have two separate budgetdedicated servers hosting the data (wine.budgetdedicated.com and wineold.budgetdedicated.com). More doesn't hurt, of course. >> It's more reliable to just have a mirror of the archive page and let >> people install manually in the case that it's offline, since I seriously >> don't expect another outage like this again. Then the manual install >> will be updated automagically on the next release when the server comes >> back up. > > You don't need to tell me about versioning in apt :P but it won't be > more reliable to mirror only the archives and not the apt server. If > you mirror the full apt repository, then you get load sharing. If you > only mirror the archives, then the mirror is only used by people who > know and can be bothered to install manually. > Sure, it doesn't hurt to mirror the apt archive too, but I'm not sure how much actual load balancing is going to happen at this point since it will require a manual change on each user. Once Karmic comes out in 2 months, new users will be pointed to the PPA instead. I could also point Jaunty and earlier users there as well, albeit with longer instructions. >> It was only offline for the whole weekend because I was physically out >> of town away from the internet and genuinely unaware of it. I should >> probably give someone my phone number so they can text me if needed. > > I don't mean to offend, but you seem a bit possessive about the apt > repository. I want to phase it out and get rid of it. Funny kind of possessiveness ;) Thanks, Scott Ritchie
