Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-mirrors-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 77328 invoked by uid 500); 27 Nov 2002 23:10:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mirrors-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: mirrors@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list mirrors@apache.org Received: (qmail 77294 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 23:10:33 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Disposition-Notification-To: "Andrew Kenna" Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:13:58 +1100 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Message-ID: <5FCE856B804270449E97E3C7744D5D2D02508C@exchangeserver.internal.stamina.com.au> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml Thread-Index: AcKWajt3FmYGze7lScOLycucMeuI9QAACVTg From: "Andrew Kenna" To: Cc: X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I guess another question I'll ask, how are we going to define high quality mirrors ?=20 A) Based on bandwidth B) whether the person relies on pre-packaged binaries to update their web site or goes out downloads the source and compiles it themselves ?=20 C) Restrict the number of mirrors in each country to say 4 D) I'm sure there are some other ideas, but these are some of the things I thought I'd throw into the discussion Andrew -----Original Message----- From: jason andrade [mailto:jason@dstc.edu.au]=20 Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:06 AM To: mirrors@apache.org Cc: infrastructure@apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > As a mirror maintainer, I prefer having old releases. i'll second this point. > the kinds of mirrors we want. In other words: Fewer high-quality=20 > mirrors is better than many medium-quality mirrors. I'd rather see 10=20 > official mirrors sync'ing everything than 100 mirrors doing partial=20 > sync'ing. ditto. having a huge number of mirrors is unfortunately only making the management issue much more difficult and the cost/benefit analysis in terms of efficiency actually starts falling at a certain point. in particular because o the apache pages are not optimized to make best use of mirrors. this is just going to need a lot of work because this only works well when setup this way from scratch. no criticism implied of people who have set it up. o lots of external places also just point directly at apache.org's download area anyway. regards, -jason