www-mirrors mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jason andrade <ja...@rtfmconsult.com>
Subject Re: new nl mirror (easynet)
Date Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:30:32 GMT
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:

> On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 01:30  PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> >> frequency: *high*
> >>  small sites 4x / hour, bigger ones 1x/hour
> >
> > That sounds a little more agressive than is really needed.  Is there a
> > reason you are updating more than once a day?
> I don't think updating every hour is a problem, rsync is
> pretty efficient. We shouldn't encourage more than once
> and hour though.

it is a scaling issue though.  maybe one rsync server syncing
once an hour from the master is fine. but 100 ?

rsync has a steep initial cpu usage and a reasonable memory
footprint if there are a lot of files.  it also will trash the
namei cache (but nothing can be done about that anyway) as it
traverses the filesystem area to rsync.. so doing this all
hourly is probably not good.

unless the apache group was releasing software hourly (a vision
of coders as guinea pigs in little wheels, running harder comes
to mind) i would say a daily, or at most twice daily sync
should be fine.

even better, it'd be good to setup a push trigger so that someone
at the apache group and trigger a "push signal" which causes
the mirrors to fetch.  it is even nicer do this as a push signal
because then the timing can be handled at the apache master
server (e.g they can insert delays to stagger updates)

all that needs to happen for a push trigger is adding a public
key from the 'push' account on the apache server and setting
it up to do the rsync fetch.



View raw message