www-mirrors mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Kenna" <andr...@stamina.com.au>
Subject RE: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml
Date Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:13:58 GMT
I guess another question I'll ask, how are we going to define high
quality mirrors ? 

A) Based on bandwidth
B) whether the person relies on pre-packaged binaries to update their
web site or goes out downloads the source and compiles it themselves ? 
C) Restrict the number of mirrors in each country to say 4

D) I'm sure there are some other ideas, but these are some of the things
I thought I'd throw into the discussion


-----Original Message-----
From: jason andrade [mailto:jason@dstc.edu.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:06 AM
To: mirrors@apache.org
Cc: infrastructure@apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:

> As a mirror maintainer, I prefer having old releases.

i'll second this point.

> the kinds of mirrors we want. In other words: Fewer high-quality 
> mirrors is better than many medium-quality mirrors. I'd rather see 10 
> official mirrors sync'ing everything than 100 mirrors doing partial 
> sync'ing.

ditto.  having a huge number of mirrors is unfortunately only making the
management issue much more difficult and the cost/benefit analysis in
terms of efficiency actually starts falling at a certain point.  in
particular because

o the apache pages are not optimized to make best use of mirrors.  this
  is just going to need a lot of work because this only works well when
  setup this way from scratch.  no criticism implied of people who have
  set it up.

o lots of external places also just point directly at apache.org's
  download area anyway.



View raw message