www-mirrors mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jason andrade <ja...@dstc.edu.au>
Subject RE: cvs commit: site/xdocs/dev mirrors.xml
Date Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:17:29 GMT
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Andrew Kenna wrote:

> I guess another question I'll ask, how are we going to define high
> quality mirrors ?
> A) Based on bandwidth

it would certainly be one of the factors.

i think the primary ones would be

o bandwidth

o ability to carry a complete mirror - e.g about 15G of disk space
  to cover every apache project ?  plus the daily updates that entails.

o ability to refresh more than daily - perhaps to implement a ssh
  based signalling system similar to that in use by gnome and other
  projects, to pull updates when they are in place on the master site

o ability to act as a propagation server - e.g running rsync for
  other downstream mirrors

o responsiveness of admin contact required to deal with mirror

> B) whether the person relies on pre-packaged binaries to update their
> web site or goes out downloads the source and compiles it themselves ?

i personally disagree strongly about individual "mirrors" doing this because
then they are no longer mirrors.  if people are providing binaries they should
be submitting them to the official site where it then propagates out to all
the other mirrors.

> C) Restrict the number of mirrors in each country to say 4

4 might be a bit small, but i guess there might be some policy there.  in the
US it might make sense to have 15 mirrors.  in australia 6.  in Tibet, 2.  it
would be a (clearly understood) function of network and demand (number of
internet users) in that region.



View raw message