On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:24:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:22:08PM +0200, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote: > > > * Split the architectures over two sets of mirror networks, so that > > > mirror administrators don't need 100G just to mirror Debian anymore. > > > > That sounds retarded in an age where a 200GB HD cost less then 100 Euro... > > Anyway you can always decide to mirror only part of the archive if you > > want to, even today. > > Oh, come on! That's not a serious argument, is it? > > First, to run a reliable mirror, one hard disk isn't going to get you > there -- you need several in some sort of a RAID setup. > I don't think this argument holds for lightly used parts of the mirror. And if the disk breaks, too bad, just download the lost bits again. I find it hard to believe you would need an enterprise class storage system to store a lightly used mirror. Even with raid 1 it would still be under 200 euro. > Second, I have yet to see the first mirror that mirrors Debian > exclusively. Most mirror Debian and some other sites. > I didn't say all of the mirror should be on 1 disk :) > Third, the 100G isn't a constant number. It will most likely jump up > high in a few weeks, as we split a new testing off of unstable and leave > woody to become oldstable. > It most likely won't double in the next half year :) > Fourth, adding the architectures that are waiting around the corner > (amd64, kFreeBSD, ...) will the disk space requirements even more. > Yes. Disk prices go down though. As long as debian doesn't grow faster then disks become cheaper, we're fine. > Fifth, many of our mirror admins want this -- the proof is easy, just > look at the number of mirrors that does already drop a few from the list > of mirrorred architectures even today. That even includes at least one > primary mirror. > Aha. So there is no reason to change anything, as those who wish to only mirror part of the archive already can do that now. > > Downloading 5GiB takes about 1 and 12 minutes on a 2Mbit/s link... > > 2Mbit/s is hardly state of the art in IP networks... (state of the art > > is more like 40GBit/s). And you can still mirror only part of the > > archive if you want to save bandwidth, even today. > > Indeed, and some of our mirrors are already doing so. It would, thus, be > interesting if we could formalize that somehow, which is what the first > bit of the proposal is all about. > But as you say, this is being done right now. No reason to change anything. > > The current list doesn't make much sense at all. > > Some elements in the current list don't, indeed. Some do. > > > Some points just don't make any sense (like limiting the number of > > buildds, or just outright refusing the arch for no reason,...) > > Those are indeed two elements that I personally would like to see > removed. But the idea of requiring that an architecture fulfills some > basic quality criteria isn't too silly. > Yes. The basic quality criterium which makes sense is that the packages in the archive work. The 98% criterium doesn't make any sense as it might not make sense to have some packages on some architectures. Happy Hacking, p2.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature