Folks,
I'd love to add mirror.seiri.com to the centos mirrors list.
The url is:
I am syncing daily.
The server is in Kingston, N.Y. on a 10Mb connection.
The sponsoring organizations are NetStep.net and Seiri Inc.
Thanks! Bob
Your Missing 5.4 Iso's So I figure you mirror isn't up to date.
On 10/23/2009 12:25 PM, Bob Bownes wrote:
Folks,
I'd love to add mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com to the centos mirrors list.
The url is:
I am syncing daily.
The server is in Kingston, N.Y. on a 10Mb connection.
The sponsoring organizations are NetStep.net and Seiri Inc.
Thanks! Bob
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
On 10/23/2009 1:21 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Your Missing 5.4 Iso's So I figure you mirror isn't up to date.
Are mirrors required do carry .isos? I didn't think that was the case.
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
-Jeff
Makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't. Centos including DVD is like what? 140GB max, with 5.3 and 5.4, like it is now.
They should go look at fedora.... its like 900GB
On 10/23/2009 1:26 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't.
That does *not* make sense :)
Centos including DVD is like what? 140GB max, with 5.3 and 5.4, like it is now.
They should go look at fedora.... its like 900GB
Yes, for those of us that host fedora + centos + suse, etc. etc. it adds up fast.
-Jeff
Indeed it does.
On 10/23/2009 1:36 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Makes sense, but at the same time it doesn't.
That does *not* make sense :)
Centos including DVD is like what? 140GB max, with 5.3 and 5.4, like it is now.
They should go look at fedora.... its like 900GB
Yes, for those of us that host fedora + centos + suse, etc. etc. it adds up fast.
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
That's why we really need block level deduplication, ASAP... ;-)
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Dedup....indeed.
So do I need to do anything special if I am going to have two machines (in disparate locations) on a round robin DNS answering to mirror.seiri.com (and rsyncing from msync)
I could sync one from the other, but that kinda defeats the round robin point.
iii
2009/10/23 João Carlos Mendes Luís jonny@jonny.eng.br
That's why we really need block level deduplication, ASAP... ;-)
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Well whats the point of the round robin? To distribute load between the two boxes, and cover fail over? To save bandwidth from everyone's point of view I think it would be better to sync one from msync, and sync the other one from the first one. What does everyone else think?
On 10/23/2009 3:22 PM, Bob Bownes wrote:
Dedup....indeed.
So do I need to do anything special if I am going to have two machines (in disparate locations) on a round robin DNS answering to mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com (and rsyncing from msync)
I could sync one from the other, but that kinda defeats the round robin point.
iii
2009/10/23 João Carlos Mendes Luís <jonny@jonny.eng.br mailto:jonny@jonny.eng.br>
That's why we really need block level deduplication, ASAP... ;-) Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > >> Never Thought of that.... >> I guess your right. >> Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though. >> > > Disk space. > > Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue > that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're > already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way > to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of > what is essentially the same data. > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror > _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Speaking as someone who has machines in a round-robin (for a number of reasons) If the boxes are in the same place (same colo, etc) I would suggest daisy chain syncing.
msync -> box 1 -> box 2
it will mean that box2 will always lag, slightly, behind box 1 but it means less load on the upstream and I would doubt if your users are going to notice much.
If you have disjoint machines (like I do), than having each one sync independently is the only real answer, though I can't imagine there are many mirrors who fall into my category of crazy infrastructure.
What is the reason your doing round robin between the two? Have you considered a shared storage solution if they are in the same place, I.E. sync to a "master" backend and push the changes to the two frontends?
I guess to make good suggestions, comments, etc (beyond the incredibly generic things) we are going to need to know more about why you have this setup and what your trying to do / accomplish with it.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley Chief Kernel.org Administrator
Nick Olsen wrote:
Well whats the point of the round robin? To distribute load between the two boxes, and cover fail over? To save bandwidth from everyone's point of view I think it would be better to sync one from msync, and sync the other one from the first one. What does everyone else think?
On 10/23/2009 3:22 PM, Bob Bownes wrote:
Dedup....indeed.
So do I need to do anything special if I am going to have two machines (in disparate locations) on a round robin DNS answering to mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com (and rsyncing from msync)
I could sync one from the other, but that kinda defeats the round robin point.
iii
2009/10/23 João Carlos Mendes Luís <jonny@jonny.eng.br mailto:jonny@jonny.eng.br>
That's why we really need block level deduplication, ASAP... ;-) Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > >> Never Thought of that.... >> I guess your right. >> Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though. >> > > Disk space. > > Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue > that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're > already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way > to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of > what is essentially the same data. > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror > _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
The machines are in geographically separate locations.
The reason for round-robin is both load balance and for fail-over.
My guess is more folks than you think have crazy infrastructure. :) I've got servers in 4 geographically separate locations for example.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM, J.H. warthog9@kernel.org wrote:
Speaking as someone who has machines in a round-robin (for a number of reasons) If the boxes are in the same place (same colo, etc) I would suggest daisy chain syncing.
msync -> box 1 -> box 2
it will mean that box2 will always lag, slightly, behind box 1 but it means less load on the upstream and I would doubt if your users are going to notice much.
If you have disjoint machines (like I do), than having each one sync independently is the only real answer, though I can't imagine there are many mirrors who fall into my category of crazy infrastructure.
What is the reason your doing round robin between the two? Have you considered a shared storage solution if they are in the same place, I.E. sync to a "master" backend and push the changes to the two frontends?
I guess to make good suggestions, comments, etc (beyond the incredibly generic things) we are going to need to know more about why you have this setup and what your trying to do / accomplish with it.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
Chief Kernel.org Administrator
Nick Olsen wrote:
Well whats the point of the round robin? To distribute load between the two boxes, and cover fail over? To save bandwidth from everyone's point of view I think it would be better to sync one from msync, and sync the other one from the first one. What does everyone else think?
On 10/23/2009 3:22 PM, Bob Bownes wrote:
Dedup....indeed.
So do I need to do anything special if I am going to have two machines (in disparate locations) on a round robin DNS answering to mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com (and rsyncing from msync)
I could sync one from the other, but that kinda defeats the round robin point.
iii
2009/10/23 João Carlos Mendes Luís <jonny@jonny.eng.br mailto:jonny@jonny.eng.br>
That's why we really need block level deduplication, ASAP... ;-) Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > >> Never Thought of that.... >> I guess your right. >> Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though. >> > > Disk space. > > Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue > that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packageswe're
> already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a betterway
> to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copiesof
> what is essentially the same data. > > -Jeff > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror > _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-mirror@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
Hey folks,
Who don't have enough bandwith nor storage space doesn't deserve to be a Official CentOS mirror.
My 100,00 EUR.
cheers, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda.
[Email] nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt [Phone] +351 21 114 2315 [Phone] +351 21 142 2300 [Mobile] +351 91 925 5561 [Fax] +351 21 114 2301 [Web] http://www.nfsi.pt/
----- Original Message ----- From: "J.H." warthog9@kernel.org To: "Mailing list for CentOS mirrors." centos-mirror@centos.org Sent: Friday, 23 October, 2009 8:53:35 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] New mirror
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
I would generally caution saying that, even the largest mirrors don't take these numbers lightly
- Centos' archive is 333G of data - Centos' primary mirroring is 162G of data - A single release (5.4) uses 32G of disk
Ignoring bandwidth (that's a lot harder to argue what's useful or not, though I'd personally say mirrors should start around 100mbps unless they are in a country without a mirror and than anything goes), and making the assumption that your only mirroring centos you now need ~500G of disk space and a machine with 32G - 24G of ram to be able to serve this well.
Why the disk space? That's obvious
Why the ram? This is something everyone forgets, but it basically boils down to the minute you have to start going to disk for your working set you will lose when faced with a horde of people trying to get data. If you have less memory than your working data set (in the case of Centos 5.4 it's 32G) than your going to be thrashing against disk, and ultimately no matter how much bandwidth you have you will be limited by the speed that you can get that data off of disk.
Now ram has gotten cheaper, thankfully, but I'm just talking about Centos on a mirror, most mirrors have more than just Centos on them. Case in point I have: - archlinux - centos - cpan - debian - fedora - fedora-epel - gentoo - gnu - LDP - mandriva - moblin - oldlinux - opensuse - redhat - slackware - suse - ubuntu
Want to guess what my *daily* working data set is? Want to guess what my working data set is when a release happens? Want to guess wat my working data set is when *MULTIPLE* releases happen simultaneously? the answer to some of those is: they don't make boxes with enough ram to support that yet, or at least that are within the wildest budgetary constraints of a mirror.
My argument about getting rid of the CD ISOs isn't about the disk space, though that's a valid point (good fast disk is expensive - a 450G 15K rpm sas drive currently runs $400+ /ea - thats expensive storage), my argument about killing the CD ISOs is one from a ram perspective, though looking at my disk usage right now I might be making the disk argument in the near future:
/dev/md0 5.5T 4.2T 1.3T 77% /home/mirrors
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
Nuno Vieira - nfsi wrote:
Hey folks,
Who don't have enough bandwith nor storage space doesn't deserve to be a Official CentOS mirror.
My 100,00 EUR.
cheers,
Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda.
[Email] nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt [Phone] +351 21 114 2315 [Phone] +351 21 142 2300 [Mobile] +351 91 925 5561 [Fax] +351 21 114 2301 [Web] http://www.nfsi.pt/
----- Original Message ----- From: "J.H." warthog9@kernel.org To: "Mailing list for CentOS mirrors." centos-mirror@centos.org Sent: Friday, 23 October, 2009 8:53:35 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] New mirror
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
I wouldn't mind having just a net-install iso. I'm lucky enough to have a decent connection at home, Atleast for around here, of about 30/5 And my second mirror at work is on symmetrical 100mb fiber. So booting from a small iso, and http or ftp'ing all the stuff needed is fast. And here at home on gigabit, Net-install is faster then the dvd. I've done a base 5.3 install in like 1 minute (once it starts copying).
On 10/23/2009 3:53 PM, J.H. wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
To anyone interested, seriously, go try / check out http://boot.kernel.org - it's got the latest Centos 5.4 in it and all of that jazz. Pravin and I are always keen on feedback and so far it's been fast and useful to me.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
Nick Olsen wrote:
I wouldn't mind having just a net-install iso. I'm lucky enough to have a decent connection at home, Atleast for around here, of about 30/5 And my second mirror at work is on symmetrical 100mb fiber. So booting from a small iso, and http or ftp'ing all the stuff needed is fast. And here at home on gigabit, Net-install is faster then the dvd. I've done a base 5.3 install in like 1 minute (once it starts copying).
On 10/23/2009 3:53 PM, J.H. wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Nick,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 08:48:40PM +0000, Nick Olsen wrote:
I wouldn't mind having just a net-install iso.
5.4 seems to have 'em -- CentOS-5.4-i386-netinstall.iso CentOS-5.4-x86_64-netinstall.iso
Plus there are other solutions out there like LinuxCOE/Instalinux
to quickly generate small boot images and get the distro from network repositories,
bryang
I'm lucky enough to have a decent connection at home, Atleast for around here, of about 30/5 And my second mirror at work is on symmetrical 100mb fiber. So booting from a small iso, and http or ftp'ing all the stuff needed is fast. And here at home on gigabit, Net-install is faster then the dvd. I've done a base 5.3 install in like 1 minute (once it starts copying).
On 10/23/2009 3:53 PM, J.H. wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
While this does seem to have veered off the original topic, I have added the isos to the rsync list for both mirror.seiri.com systems.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bryan Gartner bryan.gartner@hp.com wrote:
Nick,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 08:48:40PM +0000, Nick Olsen wrote:
I wouldn't mind having just a net-install iso.
5.4 seems to have 'em -- CentOS-5.4-i386-netinstall.iso CentOS-5.4-x86_64-netinstall.iso
Plus there are other solutions out there like LinuxCOE/Instalinux
http://www.instalinux.com/to quickly generate small boot images and get the distro from network repositories,
bryang
I'm lucky enough to have a decent connection at home, Atleast for around here, of about 30/5 And my second mirror at work is on symmetrical 100mb fiber. So booting from a small iso, and http or ftp'ing all the stuff needed is fast. And here at home on gigabit, Net-install is faster then the dvd. I've done a base 5.3 install in like 1 minute (once it starts copying).
On 10/23/2009 3:53 PM, J.H. wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of
the
other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric
and
mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time
that
happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping
that
with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that
from
the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Am 23.10.09 23:02, schrieb Bob Bownes:
While this does seem to have veered off the original topic, I have added the isos to the rsync list for both mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com systems.
Thank you. I'll wait for them to show up before adding the machine.
Thanks for supporting CentOS!
Ralph
Am 24.10.09 10:52, schrieb Ralph Angenendt:
Am 23.10.09 23:02, schrieb Bob Bownes:
While this does seem to have veered off the original topic, I have added the isos to the rsync list for both mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com systems.
Thank you. I'll wait for them to show up before adding the machine.
Did I misunderstand you or are you still syncing the isos?
Regards,
Ralph
The iso's are now sync'd. mirror.seiri.com is now operational and syncing 4x/day. The sync is actually being performed straight from our NAS, nas01.kgn.inchargesys.com.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Ralph Angenendt <ralph.angenendt@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 24.10.09 10:52, schrieb Ralph Angenendt:
Am 23.10.09 23:02, schrieb Bob Bownes:
While this does seem to have veered off the original topic, I have added the isos to the rsync list for both mirror.seiri.com http://mirror.seiri.com systems.
Thank you. I'll wait for them to show up before adding the machine.
Did I misunderstand you or are you still syncing the isos?
Regards,
Ralph _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Oh, I know. I'm just saying do away will all the iso's BUT the net-install's.
On 10/23/2009 5:00 PM, Bryan Gartner wrote:
Nick,
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 08:48:40PM +0000, Nick Olsen wrote:
I wouldn't mind having just a net-install iso.
5.4 seems to have 'em -- CentOS-5.4-i386-netinstall.iso CentOS-5.4-x86_64-netinstall.iso
Plus there are other solutions out there like LinuxCOE/Instalinux
to quickly generate small boot images and get the distro from network repositories,
bryang
I'm lucky enough to have a decent connection at home, Atleast for around here, of about 30/5 And my second mirror at work is on symmetrical 100mb fiber. So booting from a small iso, and http or ftp'ing all the stuff needed is fast. And here at home on gigabit, Net-install is faster then the dvd. I've done a base 5.3 install in like 1 minute (once it starts copying).
On 10/23/2009 3:53 PM, J.H. wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Never Thought of that.... I guess your right. Don't really see why ISO's shouldn't be carried though.
Disk space.
Some people (I won't name names, *cough* warthog *cough*) might argue that having ISO images is simply a replication of the packages we're already carrying on the mirror and that there should be a better way to handle stuff so that mirrors don't end up with multiple copies of what is essentially the same data.
I'm trying my best to kill those stupid ISO images - I mean I've got boot.kernel.org and I've done several installs / upgrades that way (including Centos I might add!), and as a general goal I want to eliminate as many needs to burn a cd for a task as I can.
That said I realize that I'm "not normal" and at best 5 years ahead of the big curve. Many people's internet connections are not as good as mine, and it's only 16mbps down / 2mbps up. Compare that to some of the other places on the planet with 10mbps symetric to 1000mbps symetric and mine pales.
I have no real expectation however that we will get rid of the ISOs anytime soon. I would *LOVE* if we could drop the CD ISOs completely from everything, but there's apparently a major backlash every time that happens (Fedora's done it a couple of times now). I'm kinda hoping that with boot.kernel.org and the DVD ISOs we might be able to finally kill the CD ISO itself off and save all of that space and eliminate that from the possible working set of data. Just my $0.02 though.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Nick Olsen wrote:
Oh, I know. I'm just saying do away will all the iso's BUT the net-install's.
Assuming that everyone who wants to install CentOS has fast internet access where/when they're doing an install seems to me to be a very bad assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
I agree, As you can see in previous posts. However, if they are going to do away will all ISO's I thought they should keep those at least.
On 10/25/2009 2:53 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Nick Olsen wrote:
Oh, I know. I'm just saying do away will all the iso's BUT the net-install's.
Assuming that everyone who wants to install CentOS has fast internet access where/when they're doing an install seems to me to be a very bad assumption.
Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Am 23.10.09 19:21, schrieb Jeff Sheltren:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Nick Olsen wrote:
Your Missing 5.4 Iso's So I figure you mirror isn't up to date.
Are mirrors required do carry .isos? I didn't think that was the case.
It would be nice. I'm not sure if we have a database field for "no isos", though.
Let me look tomorrow.
Ralph
-
Bob Bownes -
Bryan Gartner -
J.H. -
Jeff Sheltren -
Jon Lewis -
João Carlos Mendes Luís -
Nick Olsen -
Nuno Vieira - nfsi -
Ralph Angenendt