Re: mirror.debian.net maintenance
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:55:06 -0300, Carlos wrote in message
<[🔎] 18422.20314.560027.632774@fisica.ufpr.br>:
> Simon Paillard (simon.paillard@resel.enst-bretagne.fr) wrote on 3
> April 2008 13:21:
> > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24:01AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 21:41:28 +0200, Simon wrote in message
> > > > In any case with such a method, you make the rsync from such
> > > > upstream mirrors *much complicated*
> > >
> > > ..why? All I need upstream for each mirror box, is a same
> > > arch or fuller mirror. Off googling LVM now. ;o)
> >
> > I mean if an official mirror (which must provide rsync) is splitted
> > over several hosts with different archs, that makes thinks very
> > complicated for downstream mirrors that may want to mirror several
> > archs from you.
..that point I see. Maybe join all arch mirrors into a virtual
aggregate site, if such a spooky beast is possible?
> Agreed. Official national mirrors should have enough capacity to
> handle the whole distribution; I think that the splitting provided by
> mirror.debian.net is not worth the trouble.
>
> Of course other mirrors can split/exclude as they wish; the stricter
> demands apply only to the official national ones. These don't need to
> be many, so it won't hamper the distribution.
..er, I'll keep quiet about archs to keep ftp.no.d.o off my lap. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: