incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberto Galoppini <>
Subject Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? (was: Re: About Testing the SourceForce Mirror of AOO 3.4)
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:49:43 GMT
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Peter Pöml <> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 03.04.2012 um 18:17 schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
> >> We at SourceForge have worked the last ten days to line-up dedicated
> >> infrastructure (including CDN services) to support the upcoming AOO
> >> download serving test.
> >
> > I can hardly believe reading this! What's going on? We have an existing
> (and well working) mirror network, that handles any required load just
> fine. It's proven and time-tested. It has survived all releases with ease.
> By all calculation, and by practical experience, the combined upload
> capacity of the mirrors is sufficient to satisfy the peak download demand
> as well as the sustained demand. By the way, the "peak download demand"
> doesn't really differ a lot from the day-to-day download demand, contrary
> to public belief. The mirrors are numerous and spread around the world, and
> the chance of a client being sent to a close and fast mirror is good -
> better than with a handful of mirrors as is the case with the Sourceforge
> mirror network. Sourceforge specializes in something different - providing
> a myriad of small files by a set of specialized mirrors. "Normal", plain
> simple mirrors can't take part in this network as far as I can tell. Even
> though the network was considerably extended a few years ago, from 10
> (under 10?) to >20 mirrors, this is still a small number of mirrors. (Even
> though these are power-mirrors, but those are part of our existing mirror
> network just as well.)
> >
> Hi Peter,
> I don't think anyone is proposing to toss out MirrorBrain.  The
> most-recent conversations have been about how we can make our download
> page farm out to all three: Apache, MirrorBrain and SourceForge.  The
> idea would be that we would have sufficient capacity even with the
> failure of any one network.
> Another consideration is this:  We know that the administrative site
> of the Apache mirror network is reliably staffed.  I believe that
> SourceForge is reliably staffed.

Our SiteOp are available 24X7X52, a level of support required to serve over
15 million downloads per week, over 2 Pb data per month.
We actually decided to buy CDNs to provide an additional capacity should it
be required, and we are using this week to test and collect data to be used
to optimize the infrastructure to serve the launch peak.

Advertising revenues actually enables us to subsidize burst capacity
through those CDNs, not differently from what happened recently with the
stabilization of both the templates and extensions sites.

We worked hard also to provide stats and other data feeds that will help
the Apache Open Office folks see the operating systems, geographic
locations, and general makeup of their downloaders. You might have a look
at the documentation we just updated at:


> But what about our MirrorBrain
> usage?  How many people on the AOO project know all the details about
> publishing to the network?  If we had to do a release -- say a
> security patch -- and you were on vacation, do we have the ability to
> do it?
> Regards,
> -Rob

This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential
and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender
by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system.
Thank you.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message