Donald Norwood wrote: > > > On 06/22/2012 02:24 PM, Darren Baginski wrote: >> 22.06.2012, 22:01, "Darren Baginski"<kickbsd@yandex.com>: >>>> I've been working on a project that provides an alternative to >>>> cdn.d.n. It >>>> is based on http redirections. >>>> An introduction can be found on the site itself[1], and a >>>> comparison to >>>> cdn.d.n at [2]. >>>> >>>> I now have setup a test instance in a host in Canada to allow >>>> people to >>>> actually test and use the system. This host is http.debian.net. >>> This is very bad idea, instead of having auto mirror selection >>> mechanism you've implemented classical Single Point of Failure >>> Proper implementation should loop over existing mirrors, starting >>> with less latency/faster transfer and then fallback/load balance to >>> another, >>> if file is not available. Unfortunately your solution is not solution >>> at all. Something close to proper implementation is used for fedora >>> infrastructure. >>> 3xx per file redirect is not a scale-able solution. >>> > > Can you clarify what you mean by single point of failure? One would > think that having a redirector point towards several *matched* mirrors > in terms of load balancing, distance, consistency checks, and > newer/fresher mirrors would be of great benefit vs. picking a mirror and > discovering it is either down, out of sync, off-line, or otherwise > befallen. The master list is always available so one can still pick and > choose a favored mirror to override the http.d.o suggestion. I think he means the redirector itself would be a single point of failure. Regards, Austin.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature