Proxy instead of mirror? (was: perhaps sort by priority?)
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 06:35:03AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 06:58:36PM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Michael Stone wrote:
> > : Maybe mirros are the wrong idea, and people should be creating squid
> > : proxies?
> >
> > As a mirror maintainer, when I first read your message I thought "This
> > guy must be crazy." Then I re-read your message ... I like the idea
> > quite a lot. However, I've only configured squid once in my life ...
> > have you any suggestions as to what's needed (mostly hardware-wise, I
> > guess, though any other helpful hints would be nice :)
>
> I don't know about the implementation details myself. I just think it
> seems wasteful to copy a few gigs of data every day that may never be
> looked at. We need a way to address that, and squid seems like a
> possibility.
Problem with squid: The first one trying to download a file from the proxy
is out of luck. For him it takes just as long (maybe even a little longer)
as downloading it directly. Like the debian mirror here at our university:
Within the network, I have transfer 500K+, accessing servers outside, I get
5 to 10K. If there was some combination - like mirroring important files as
before and proxying (i.e. mirror on demand) anything else. We could then let
the individual sited decide how much they want to consider "important".
(All this being pure theory. Of course it depends on how likely it is to be
the first one to download a file.)
--
-- ______________________________________________________
-- JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!
-- To Him, even that machine here has to obey...
--
-- _________________________________Norbert "Nobbi" Nemec
-- Hindenburgstr. 44 ... D-91054 Erlangen ... Germany
-- eMail: <nobbi@cheerful.com> Tel: +49-(0)-911-204180
Reply to: