[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Canonical and Debian

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

> > 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,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: