Re: ftpsync README rewrite
Lee Winter (lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com) wrote on 17 September 2009 14:39:
>On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 11874 March 1977, Lee Winter wrote:
>>
>>> So in the mean time I have accomplished two things. I analyzed the
>>> debian subsections with an eye to writing up a tuning article on
>>> mirror admin.
>>
>> This you will never see in ftpsync. It isnt meant for such broken
>> setups.
>
>Partial mirrors are not broken. They are just partial.
Yes. However, the Debian mirror has a peculiar structure, that is very
efficient for many things (I think it's the best one) but that doesn't
allow for easy splitting up. More importantly, spliting it saves very
little because it's already optimized. For example, I once took the
pain of removing an old release. One would think that this would save
a lot, particularly taking into account the archeological time
separation between releases :-) But it turned out to save very little.
One useful split (probably the only worth one) is the arch, which is
already available.
>There is a hierarchy of mirrors and different layers within the
>hierargy need different tools.
> -- By definition the internal mirrors have to handle the entire repository.
> -- The external official mirrors already have subsets based on
>distribution, section, and architecture.
Distribution selection doesn't exist. The only official (and useful
one) is architecture. Further, official country mirrors must carry
everything.
>They should also have the ability to subset based on localization.
No idea what you mean.
[long list of slices of the debian repository removed]
With the current price of storage all this is not worth the trouble.
If you also want to save bandwidth just use a proxy like apt-cacher-ng
or the others that exist in the distribution. They're very effective.
>If you could update as often as possible, assuming little or no CPU
>load on the source mirror, little or no IO load on the source mirror,
>and a very narrow (<1 sec) update period, how often would it be useful
>to do a push?
The boss has already stated that he dreams of hourly updates :-) In
practice, if you manage to follow the changes daily, the only
difference between frequent and sporadic updates is that you don't get
too far from upstream. I too would like to do frequent syncs (which
would be trivial with rsmir), and do it for other distros, but with
the rate of changes in Debian I have to admit that it wouldn't make
much of a difference.
Reply to: