Hi,
just a short announcement that you will be seeing 5.6 coming to your mirrors in a very short while.
The directory should sync as not open to the outside world, there will be a bit switch when we feel that enough mirrors should have that release (meaning: We monitor mirror-status.centos.org).
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
Regards,
Ralph Angenendt
As a reminder to old mirrors and tip for new mirrors now might be a good time to remove the "--delete" flags from your rsync scripts in order to protect the 5.6 tree in the event you stumble upon a mirror that doesn't have it after you have already download it. I have been bit by this in the past. :( Of course make sure this is compatible with your setup beforehand.
Just my $0.02.
Adam
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Hi,
just a short announcement that you will be seeing 5.6 coming to your mirrors in a very short while.
The directory should sync as not open to the outside world, there will be a bit switch when we feel that enough mirrors should have that release (meaning: We monitor mirror-status.centos.org).
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
Regards,
Ralph Angenendt
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Adam wrote:
As a reminder to old mirrors and tip for new mirrors now might be a good time to remove the "--delete" flags from your rsync scripts in order to protect the 5.6 tree in the event you stumble upon a mirror that doesn't have it after you have already download it.
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain (instead of us-msync.centos.org, say, we do a temp.us-msync.centos.org), add machines from the 'permanent' domain into this temporary domain as and when they finish their sync of the new content and let downstream mirrors do the sync from this temp domain instead of the usual (permanent) domain. Once we have release (or all the upstreamers are synced up), we ask the downstream mirrors to go back to mirroring from the old permanent domains. Downstream mirrors could choose not to do this if they feel so for whatever reason. For those who choose to go along with this, it would entail one change of upstream server when we start and one more change to revert this when release is up.
For us, this is too much work... we have a lot of mirrors here and we also have a lot of servers to look after. I realize it's a "small thing to do" but we mirror many sites because it's a "set it up and forget about it" thing pretty much... we are happy to contribute to the world at large but if it's not completely automated then we won't do it ....
;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Prof. P. Sriram Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:21 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Adam wrote:
As a reminder to old mirrors and tip for new mirrors now might be a
good
time to remove the "--delete" flags from your rsync scripts in order
to
protect the 5.6 tree in the event you stumble upon a mirror that
doesn't
have it after you have already download it.
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain (instead of us-msync.centos.org, say, we do a temp.us-msync.centos.org),
add machines from the 'permanent' domain into this temporary domain as and when they finish their sync of the new content and let downstream mirrors do the sync from this temp domain instead of the usual (permanent) domain. Once we have release (or all the upstreamers are synced up), we ask the downstream mirrors to go back to mirroring from the old permanent domains. Downstream mirrors could choose not to do this if they feel so for whatever reason. For those who choose to go along with this, it would entail one change of upstream server when we start and one more change to revert this when release is up.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place that only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to pull from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
- KB
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from centos.org And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
I recommend my mirror (mirror.roelf.org), i'm the only one pulling data from it, i've got bandwith enough. And i sync to centos.org.
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 5 apr. 2011 om 11:39 heeft Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org het volgende geschreven:
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place that only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to pull from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
- KB
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from centos.org And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place that only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to pull from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or mirrorservice.org
- KB
So?
This would still lower the load from centos.org. Isn't it a good idea?
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 5 apr. 2011 om 22:52 heeft Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org het volgende geschreven:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from centos.org And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place that only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to pull from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or mirrorservice.org
- KB
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from centos.org And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to do a DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place that only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to pull from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- John 'Warthog9' Hawley _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Oops...
I meant 600GB a day... sorry.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:43 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
Well, Depends on how your measuring :D In march- According to AWstats on that machine, We avg 690GB a day, on a 100MB/s Circuit... Our Highest day being 3908.53 GB on the 24th (Not remotely possible on a 100Mb/s circuit that we have given the mirror). So that's incorrect.
I assume your not using AWstats however. Now, SNMP at the switch port shows us at 91gb a day, For the last 30 days. So your way above us :D
On 4/6/2011 2:43 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Oops...
I meant 600GB a day... sorry.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 2:43 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1& 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: > Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
By the way, can someone add a function to the mirror-status so you can let it sort sites on other things then country?
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:11 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better. > On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: >> Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile to
do a
>> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source domain > > Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
> only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
> from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments already stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things like --delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means the tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware) links some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused" mirrors may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be pointing at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
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
Why are you listed under Canada when your server is in the USA?
1 dis1-rtr-tu-ge0-0.nexicom.net (76.75.85.129) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 dis2-rtr-mb-ge9-7.nexicom.net (76.75.85.33) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 ge5-1-9-4.core1.toronto1.nexicom.net (98.124.0.226) 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 4 gige-g2-20.core1.tor1.he.net (209.51.163.145) [AS 6939] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 5 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.nyc5.he.net (72.52.92.165) [AS 6939] 24 msec 28 msec 24 msec 6 bluehost.tienyc.telxgroup.net (206.126.115.34) [AS 25973] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 7 tg2-5.ar01.prov.bluehost.com (69.195.64.41) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 8 mirror.roelf.org (69.195.90.115) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf Wichertjes Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:14 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
By the way, can someone add a function to the mirror-status so you can let it sort sites on other things then country?
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:11 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of
it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high
ranked mirror, it took me 16 min.
Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle
the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart"
pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files...
does
that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull
from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better. > On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: >> Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be
worthwhile to
do a
>> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
> > Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in
place
that
> only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones )
to
pull
> from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly
makes
things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental
upstream
removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is
structured
well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors
are
allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else
can
make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's
worthwhile,
and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in
a
better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number
of
people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
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
I forgot to change that, 2 weeks ago i got a e-mail from my host saying: Our new data-center is finished! <some specs> We will be moving the servers! ---------------
Sorry for that.
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:16 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
Why are you listed under Canada when your server is in the USA?
1 dis1-rtr-tu-ge0-0.nexicom.net (76.75.85.129) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 dis2-rtr-mb-ge9-7.nexicom.net (76.75.85.33) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 ge5-1-9-4.core1.toronto1.nexicom.net (98.124.0.226) 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 4 gige-g2-20.core1.tor1.he.net (209.51.163.145) [AS 6939] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 5 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.nyc5.he.net (72.52.92.165) [AS 6939] 24 msec 28 msec 24 msec 6 bluehost.tienyc.telxgroup.net (206.126.115.34) [AS 25973] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 7 tg2-5.ar01.prov.bluehost.com (69.195.64.41) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 8 mirror.roelf.org (69.195.90.115) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf Wichertjes Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:14 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
By the way, can someone add a function to the mirror-status so you can let it sort sites on other things then country?
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:11 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of
it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high
ranked mirror, it took me 16 min.
Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle
the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart"
pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files...
does
that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote: > > Maybe a idea, > Why not choose the least busy ones, > Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused > Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull
from
centos.org
> And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? > That should even the load better. >> On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: >>> Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be
worthwhile to
do a
>>> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
>> >> Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in
place
that
>> only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones )
to
pull
>> from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly
makes
things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental
upstream
removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is
structured
well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors
are
allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else
can
make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's
worthwhile,
and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in
a
better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number
of
people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
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 _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
It's just me being nosy about who's serving traffic here in Canada ;)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf Wichertjes Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:46 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I forgot to change that, 2 weeks ago i got a e-mail from my host saying: Our new data-center is finished! <some specs> We will be moving the servers! ---------------
Sorry for that.
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:16 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
Why are you listed under Canada when your server is in the USA?
1 dis1-rtr-tu-ge0-0.nexicom.net (76.75.85.129) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 dis2-rtr-mb-ge9-7.nexicom.net (76.75.85.33) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 ge5-1-9-4.core1.toronto1.nexicom.net (98.124.0.226) 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 4 gige-g2-20.core1.tor1.he.net (209.51.163.145) [AS 6939] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 5 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.nyc5.he.net (72.52.92.165) [AS 6939] 24 msec 28 msec 24 msec 6 bluehost.tienyc.telxgroup.net (206.126.115.34) [AS 25973] 92 msec
92
msec 92 msec 7 tg2-5.ar01.prov.bluehost.com (69.195.64.41) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 8 mirror.roelf.org (69.195.90.115) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf
Wichertjes
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:14 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
By the way, can someone add a function to the mirror-status so you can let it sort sites on other things then country?
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:11 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of
it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high
ranked mirror, it took me 16 min.
Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle
the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart"
pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files...
does
that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote: > > Maybe a idea, > Why not choose the least busy ones, > Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused > Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull
from
centos.org
> And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? > That should even the load better. >> On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: >>> Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be
worthwhile to
do a
>>> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
>> >> Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in
place
that
>> only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones )
to
pull
>> from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly
makes
things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental
upstream
removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is
structured
well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors
are
allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else
can
make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's
worthwhile,
and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are
in
a
better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number
of
people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
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 _______________________________________________ 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
Don't worry man, I forgot to update, it's my mistake. Could the location be updated?
Oh, I can't find the mail saying my tier, Can someone resend that mail?
Ps. I'd like it if people start using my mirror, me and the organisation if my friend are the only ones using it.
If you need some it-help or a custom program for a purpose, mail me on info@roelf.org I've already made a lot of things for people, I'll program for free, however i'd like it if you put a thx on your site.
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:56 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
It's just me being nosy about who's serving traffic here in Canada ;)
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf Wichertjes Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:46 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I forgot to change that, 2 weeks ago i got a e-mail from my host saying: Our new data-center is finished!
<some specs> We will be moving the servers! ---------------
Sorry for that.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:16 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
Why are you listed under Canada when your server is in the USA?
1 dis1-rtr-tu-ge0-0.nexicom.net (76.75.85.129) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec 2 dis2-rtr-mb-ge9-7.nexicom.net (76.75.85.33) 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec 3 ge5-1-9-4.core1.toronto1.nexicom.net (98.124.0.226) 12 msec 8 msec 12 msec 4 gige-g2-20.core1.tor1.he.net (209.51.163.145) [AS 6939] 12 msec 12 msec 12 msec 5 10gigabitethernet1-2.core1.nyc5.he.net (72.52.92.165) [AS 6939] 24 msec 28 msec 24 msec 6 bluehost.tienyc.telxgroup.net (206.126.115.34) [AS 25973] 92 msec
92
msec 92 msec 7 tg2-5.ar01.prov.bluehost.com (69.195.64.41) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec 8 mirror.roelf.org (69.195.90.115) [AS 11798] 92 msec 92 msec 92 msec
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Roelf
Wichertjes
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:14 AM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
By the way, can someone add a function to the mirror-status so you can let it sort sites on other things then country?
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:11 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het volgende geschreven:
Also i found out that i made a error in the cron settings, instead of
it syncing once every 12 houres, it synced every 12 DAYS, i fixed it, hopefully fixing the low ranking
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 17:03 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
Oh, by the way: What's "mirror age, daily stats" at the mirror list? I'm increasing the sync rate to once an hour.
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 16:58 heeft Roelf Wichertjes info@roelf.org het
volgende geschreven:
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high
ranked mirror, it took me 16 min.
Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle
the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart"
pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files...
does
that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote: >> >> Maybe a idea, >> Why not choose the least busy ones, >> Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused >> Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull
from
centos.org >> And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? >> That should even the load better. >>> On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: >>>> Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be
worthwhile to
do a >>>> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
>>> >>> Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in
place
that >>> only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones )
to
pull >>> from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them. > > > from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or mirrorservice.org > > - KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly
makes
things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental
upstream
removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is
structured
well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors
are
allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else
can
make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's
worthwhile,
and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are
in
a
better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number
of
people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
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 _______________________________________________ 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
OMG, this is notorious!
Long time I have been listening but now I feel urged to talk and release some frustrated thoughts in public.
1) To all the new kids on the block who constantly ask for getting "direct" access to DVD-ISOs the second day after having their mirror set up
STOP asking! The content delivery network of CentOS must stay hierarchical to be efficient. The master volunteers in the team know to identify which networks/hosts have the necessary reputation, technical know-how and capacity to serve other downstream mirrors in a certain are over rsync which ultimately act as proxies to serve files to on-net/directly peered network hosts. It would almost be recommendable that only very few master servers were selected by the CentOS team to publishes new content on and push it one at a time to such downstream servers or downstream servers are given a time window to pull in order to avoid overload on the masters. It's like DNS root servers, if everybody insisted to only get name resolution done by them, it would get bad for everybody while in fact not a single tick more accurate. In a digital world, a digital copy is as good as the original.
2) Backbone bandwidth is one thing and sustainable throughput are clearly measurable resources as how many Megabytes can be pushed out per time unit
Are you guys aware that the data transfer I/O rate from the storage medium is limited. Plain magnetic PATA or SATA disks @7200 RMP or such slow turning disks in a RAID1 or RAID5 array can only read from the disk at a maximum speed of about 1 Gbit/s (disk to buffer) and it gets MUCH worse for concurrent requests when the tracks are remote for the spindle or the buffer runs constantly full. SCSI/SAS disks @10k or 15k RMP and more redundant RAID arrays with a good RAID controller do somewhat better as they are made to concurrently seek and deliver bytes from the disk to the buffer. SSD disks are a much greater thing, and so it their price. A 99$ "super-dedicated-flatrate-rootserver" machine rented from some provider and having some spare diskspace and bandwidth are NOT suitable to be high up in the hierarchy ever, much less can they take the load of thousands of CentOS machines, initiating a yum update at any non-predictable moment in time. Cheap machines from cheap datacenters tend to have "best effort" bandwidth and the bw is commonly shaped if the hardware isn't maxed out before that. The owners are the first ones to scream if their unimportant website served from the same machine gets slow. Be welcome to donate your bandwidth at your level but don't try to impress us with multi TenGE bandwidth and "Tier1" blabla (the autonomous system to which your IP is connected might have that OVERALL, BUT YOUR SERVERS DON'T) and the silly "unlimited" talk. It's more honest to have a dedicated vintage machine (which 5 years back was a top notch iron) on a port limited to SUSTAINABLE 10 Mbit/s. I don't want to discourage anybody from bearing a share of this CDN project but I urge everybody who may be concerned to refrain from seeing this as a boys game: who has the bigger one, who can do it faster and who is cooler.
3) The ones who reported that 5.6 hasn't made it yet to their mirror and increased the rsync frequency near to one Hertz
Stay calm! The world lived without CentOS 5.6 for a good time and it will not stop to turn if it takes a couple days longer. For the ones who live after the time=money paradigm, they have the money to buy RHEL or Oracle Linux, both had their products on the shelves a couple month ago. Sleep one or two nights over and 5.6 will be bright and wonderful on your mirror as well.
4) My message to the people behind the CentOS CDN
You do a great job! Thank you for the patience you have with newbies (we all were one day). Go for some known to be working software like Mirrormanager as soon as you can because you lack the time to reinvent the wheel. And please don't forget a few commercial aspects not so evident to people who associate the Internet with their cable or dsl modem. Peering traffic is free (not settled with cash), transit traffic varies extremely depending on the supplier network. I am sure datacenter connecting networks were more likely to kick in if they could control which ASNs get unrestricted access and which ASN transit paths stay out. Such a GUI controlled tool, would make it easy for every admin to change mirror preferences at their own discretion without justifying in public why they had to close the mirror down (probably because they couldn't afford the 99$ anymore) and wondering why they are not ranked No.1 (because they think everything is like SETI@home).
I feel so much better now that I have told
Good evening, good night, or good morning to everyone out there listening this channel ;-)
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror- bounces@centos.org] Im Auftrag von Roelf Wichertjes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 16:59 An: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Betreff: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote:
Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile
to
do a
DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
@sceptics:
In my case the "unlimited" in "unlimited bandwith" is real, My friend updated all 300 pc's under his command to 5.5. He used the boot.iso for every one, meaning that all pc's seperatly downloaded the installation. It caused more then 3TB of bandwith usage! And he even gave me a thx for the high download speed!
-------------------- Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org --------------------
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 19:30 heeft florian@gruendler.net het volgende geschreven:
OMG, this is notorious!
Long time I have been listening but now I feel urged to talk and release some frustrated thoughts in public.
- To all the new kids on the block who constantly ask for getting "direct"
access to DVD-ISOs the second day after having their mirror set up
STOP asking! The content delivery network of CentOS must stay hierarchical to be efficient. The master volunteers in the team know to identify which networks/hosts have the necessary reputation, technical know-how and capacity to serve other downstream mirrors in a certain are over rsync which ultimately act as proxies to serve files to on-net/directly peered network hosts. It would almost be recommendable that only very few master servers were selected by the CentOS team to publishes new content on and push it one at a time to such downstream servers or downstream servers are given a time window to pull in order to avoid overload on the masters. It's like DNS root servers, if everybody insisted to only get name resolution done by them, it would get bad for everybody while in fact not a single tick more accurate. In a digital world, a digital copy is as good as the original.
- Backbone bandwidth is one thing and sustainable throughput are clearly
measurable resources as how many Megabytes can be pushed out per time unit
Are you guys aware that the data transfer I/O rate from the storage medium is limited. Plain magnetic PATA or SATA disks @7200 RMP or such slow turning disks in a RAID1 or RAID5 array can only read from the disk at a maximum speed of about 1 Gbit/s (disk to buffer) and it gets MUCH worse for concurrent requests when the tracks are remote for the spindle or the buffer runs constantly full. SCSI/SAS disks @10k or 15k RMP and more redundant RAID arrays with a good RAID controller do somewhat better as they are made to concurrently seek and deliver bytes from the disk to the buffer. SSD disks are a much greater thing, and so it their price. A 99$ "super-dedicated-flatrate-rootserver" machine rented from some provider and having some spare diskspace and bandwidth are NOT suitable to be high up in the hierarchy ever, much less can they take the load of thousands of CentOS machines, initiating a yum update at any non-predictable moment in time. Cheap machines from cheap datacenters tend to have "best effort" bandwidth and the bw is commonly shaped if the hardware isn't maxed out before that. The owners are the first ones to scream if their unimportant website served from the same machine gets slow. Be welcome to donate your bandwidth at your level but don't try to impress us with multi TenGE bandwidth and "Tier1" blabla (the autonomous system to which your IP is connected might have that OVERALL, BUT YOUR SERVERS DON'T) and the silly "unlimited" talk. It's more honest to have a dedicated vintage machine (which 5 years back was a top notch iron) on a port limited to SUSTAINABLE 10 Mbit/s. I don't want to discourage anybody from bearing a share of this CDN project but I urge everybody who may be concerned to refrain from seeing this as a boys game: who has the bigger one, who can do it faster and who is cooler.
- The ones who reported that 5.6 hasn't made it yet to their mirror and
increased the rsync frequency near to one Hertz
Stay calm! The world lived without CentOS 5.6 for a good time and it will not stop to turn if it takes a couple days longer. For the ones who live after the time=money paradigm, they have the money to buy RHEL or Oracle Linux, both had their products on the shelves a couple month ago. Sleep one or two nights over and 5.6 will be bright and wonderful on your mirror as well.
- My message to the people behind the CentOS CDN
You do a great job! Thank you for the patience you have with newbies (we all were one day). Go for some known to be working software like Mirrormanager as soon as you can because you lack the time to reinvent the wheel. And please don't forget a few commercial aspects not so evident to people who associate the Internet with their cable or dsl modem. Peering traffic is free (not settled with cash), transit traffic varies extremely depending on the supplier network. I am sure datacenter connecting networks were more likely to kick in if they could control which ASNs get unrestricted access and which ASN transit paths stay out. Such a GUI controlled tool, would make it easy for every admin to change mirror preferences at their own discretion without justifying in public why they had to close the mirror down (probably because they couldn't afford the 99$ anymore) and wondering why they are not ranked No.1 (because they think everything is like SETI@home).
I feel so much better now that I have told
Good evening, good night, or good morning to everyone out there listening this channel ;-)
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror- bounces@centos.org] Im Auftrag von Roelf Wichertjes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 16:59 An: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Betreff: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
I've got the bandwith and speed for it, I once pulled all 7 install iso's (at the same time) from a high ranked mirror, it took me 16 min. Then did the same but now used my mirror, it took me 15 min. My bandwith is enough. Ps. I know what a busy server is. I get a bonus from my host if i have a lot of traffic. I forgot the tier of the site and i removed the --delete flag. (my mail software is broken and the webmail i'm using can't handle the e-mail format of the list-admin, so i can't read the mail in which he told me the tier).
I'm ready for it!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net het volgende geschreven:
I'm curious as to what a busy mirror is...
We are currently delivering about 60GB a day of CentOS files... does that put us at the bottom or near the top? ;)
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of J.H. Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 01:52 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/05/2011 12:30 PM, Roelf Wichertjes wrote:
Maybe a idea, Why not choose the least busy ones, Say there are 100 mirrors, 5 are busy and 5 almost unused Isn't it a better idea to let the 5 busy and the 5 unbusy pull from
centos.org
And have the other 90 pull from the 5 unbusy? That should even the load better.
On 04/05/2011 10:20 AM, Prof. P. Sriram wrote: > Maybe it's been discussed before, but would it not be worthwhile
to
do a
> DNS based thing for this? We create a temporary rsync source
domain
Thats quite a lot of work, I'm more keen on having ACL's in place
that
only allow some specific mirrors ( maybe the 100 busiest ones ) to
pull
from centos.org; and have everyone else pull from them.
from 'busy' -i meant more like kernel.org / heanet.ie or
mirrorservice.org
- KB
Tiering the mirror distribution is pretty common, and honestly makes things a *LOT* easier for everyone. I agree with the sentiments
already
stated, automation is what makes this all doable. Removing things
like
--delete from your mirrors, is just a PITA. Yes accidental upstream removals will happen, but if the mirror infrastructure is structured well it will propagate out and the fix will propagate out quickly.
The way I've normally seen it is a small number (say 10) mirrors are allowed to pull form the master machines, and servers are then encouraged / forced to pull from those tier 1 mirrors. This means
the
tier 1's can pull more often from the upstream, and everyone else can make better use of the 1 & 10 gbps (and associated big hardware)
links
some of the bigger mirrors have. Personally I think it's worthwhile, and it's not too hard to implement.
Keep in mind that the 'busier' servers (kernel.org at least) are in a better position (hardware / bandwidth) to support a greater number of people pulling from them. I would guess many of those "unused"
mirrors
may not be able to support the deluge you could potentially be
pointing
at them, this isn't universal but it's something to be aware of.
- 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
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
Roelf
I really appreciate the energy you bring here and we all love you in some way. However, it's time to ring your Bluehost account manager for violating the contract promising "unlimited" throughput.
Empirical examples below show the real difference: I get < 1.5 Megabit/second when talking in SI units from your server. That's like a factor 65 less than a 100 Mbit Netport. The sole consolation might be that Bluehosts own mirror is even slower than yours. And third example is a mirror with good hardware and a good network (in this case taxpayers money, I know the organization behind). Easier to understand by the "ETA" (acronym for estimated time to accomplish, or so), your 700 Megabyte ISO would have come to me in 65 minutes, while the high-performance mirror would have served it to me in under 2 Minutes, which is a factor 30. Conclusion: Their monthly running cost for the infrastructure is probably more than 30 times the price of what you spend, so you are the winner in price/performance!
Kind regards,
Florian
--20:42:48-- http://mirror.roelf.org/centos/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso (try: 2) => `CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso' Connecting to mirror.roelf.org|69.195.90.115|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 206 Partial Content Length: 733,669,376 (700M), 704,667,687 (672M) remaining [application/octet-stream]
10% [++++======> ] 73,860,362 160.45K/s ETA 59:28
--21:00:34-- http://mirrors.bluehost.com/centos/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.... => `CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso.3' Resolving mirrors.bluehost.com... 67.20.126.75 Connecting to mirrors.bluehost.com|67.20.126.75|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 733,669,376 (700M) [application/octet-stream]
10% [===========> ] 79,656,216 106.99K/s ETA 1:18:43
--21:10:39-- http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/centos/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-... => `CentOS-5.6-x86_64-LiveCD.iso.2' Resolving mirror.switch.ch... 130.59.10.36 Connecting to mirror.switch.ch|130.59.10.36|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 733,669,376 (700M) [application/octet-stream]
10% [===========> ] 78,280,352 8.95M/s ETA 01:28
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror- bounces@centos.org] Im Auftrag von Roelf Wichertjes Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. April 2011 20:09 An: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Betreff: Re: [CentOS-mirror] the world is still turning and so do CentOS mirrors in a way
@sceptics:
In my case the "unlimited" in "unlimited bandwith" is real, My friend updated all 300 pc's under his command to 5.5. He used the boot.iso for every one, meaning that all pc's seperatly downloaded the installation. It caused more then 3TB of bandwith usage! And he even gave me a thx for the high download speed!
Roelf Software software.roelf.org www.roelf.org
Op 7 apr. 2011 om 19:30 heeft florian@gruendler.net het volgende geschreven:
OMG, this is notorious!
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Hi,
just a short announcement that you will be seeing 5.6 coming to your mirrors in a very short while.
<snip>
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
It's been 9 hours but we have seen no sign of this tree on the master mirrors, yet.
Karanbir indicated that we should have been seeing the mirror content as early as 9 AM CDT via centos-devel
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-April/007301.html
Is there a delay or problem?
Hi, If mirror get's 50mbit link for rsync in a hour it can download ~18GB, isn't it enouth? May be main mirrors may take of ISO files and put them only then get good enough load after start?
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Angenendt Sent: 2011 m. balandžio 4 d. 16:46 To: centos-mirror-announce@centos.org Cc: centos-mirror@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
Hi,
just a short announcement that you will be seeing 5.6 coming to your mirrors in a very short while.
The directory should sync as not open to the outside world, there will be a bit switch when we feel that enough mirrors should have that release (meaning: We monitor mirror-status.centos.org).
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
Regards,
Ralph Angenendt
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
We now have the 5.6 tree, but we see missing content:
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 8.6G 5.6/os
Where are the SRPMS? Should we just wait more, or should these already be present?
i currently see:
4.4G ./os/x86_64/CentOS 192M ./os/x86_64/images 8.1M ./os/x86_64/isolinux 35M ./os/x86_64/repodata 4.6G ./os/x86_64 3.8G ./os/i386/CentOS 188M ./os/i386/images 7.6M ./os/i386/isolinux 29M ./os/i386/repodata 4.0G ./os/i386 4.0K ./os/SRPMS 8.6G ./os 4.0K ./updates/x86_64/RPMS 8.0K ./updates/x86_64 4.0K ./updates/i386/RPMS 4.0K ./updates/i386/SRPMS 12K ./updates/i386 137M ./updates/SRPMS 137M ./updates 4.6G ./isos/x86_64 4.0G ./isos/i386 8.6G ./isos 18G .
Anthony Somerset
Somerset Technical Solutions somersettechsolutions.co.uk M: 07595568755 E: anthony@somersettechsolutions.co.uk T: http://twitter.com/anthonysomerset - http://twitter.com/somerset_tech L: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthonysomerset
On 5 Apr 2011, at 18:28, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
We now have the 5.6 tree, but we see missing content:
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 8.6G 5.6/os
Where are the SRPMS? Should we just wait more, or should these already be present?
-- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
We now have the 5.6 tree, but we see missing content:
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 8.6G 5.6/os
Where are the SRPMS? Should we just wait more, or should these already be present?
On mirror.chpc.utah.edu, I see
# du -chsx 5.6/*/* 8.0G 5.6/isos/i386 9.2G 5.6/isos/x86_64 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 12K 5.6/updates/i386 137M 5.6/updates/SRPMS 8.0K 5.6/updates/x86_64 26G total
According to centosj5, I this is everything.
DR
On 04/05/2011 01:22 PM, David Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
We now have the 5.6 tree, but we see missing content:
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 8.6G 5.6/os
Where are the SRPMS? Should we just wait more, or should these already be present?
<snip>
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS
<snip>
According to centosj5, I this is everything.
That is everything available on the master mirrors, but it's not a complete Linux distribution without SRPMS, and the SRPMS dir is empty, as the 4K number indicates.
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/05/2011 01:22 PM, David Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Kevin Stange wrote:
On 04/04/2011 08:46 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
If you see anything out of the ordinary, please send a mail to the centos-mirror list.
We now have the 5.6 tree, but we see missing content:
4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS 4.0G 5.6/os/i386 4.6G 5.6/os/x86_64 8.6G 5.6/os
Where are the SRPMS? Should we just wait more, or should these already be present?
<snip> > 4.0K 5.6/os/SRPMS <snip> > According to centosj5, I this is everything.
That is everything available on the master mirrors, but it's not a complete Linux distribution without SRPMS, and the SRPMS dir is empty, as the 4K number indicates.
You are correct.
I meant my reply as a report on how much I saw in the other directories (not as gainsaying your comment).
Sorry adding entropy to the world :)
DR
On 04/05/2011 07:50 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
That is everything available on the master mirrors, but it's not a complete Linux distribution without SRPMS, and the SRPMS dir is empty, as the 4K number indicates.
no src.rpms or debuginfo till the mirrors stabalise, and the binary repo's are where they need to be.
also, i hope everyone has their bit's in the unflipped state :) There are going to be inrepo changes before release.
- KB
Could someone please explain the "bit flips" ? Sorry, I haven't taken any time to understand this .. is it just a matter of the correct rsync command switches?
In our rsync crontab we have:
# CENTOS Mirror 01 * * * * www-data /usr/bin/rsync -rtlzv --delete rsync://mirror.steadfast.net/centos/ /var/centos/
This has worked very well for us but is that where we should be looking? ... (and thanks to the fine folks at Steadfast whom we peer with, for providing rsync ;) )
Thanks,
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Karanbir Singh Sent: April-05-11 4:57 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On 04/05/2011 07:50 PM, Kevin Stange wrote:
That is everything available on the master mirrors, but it's not a complete Linux distribution without SRPMS, and the SRPMS dir is empty, as the 4K number indicates.
no src.rpms or debuginfo till the mirrors stabalise, and the binary repo's are where they need to be.
also, i hope everyone has their bit's in the unflipped state :) There are going to be inrepo changes before release.
- KB _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Paul Stewart pstewart@nexicomgroup.net wrote:
Could someone please explain the "bit flips" ? Sorry, I haven't taken any time to understand this .. is it just a matter of the correct rsync command switches?
Paul, the way that mirror syncing for a release works for CentOS (and many other distributions) is to setup the new directory such that it is *not* world readable (chmod 700 5.6/ for example). This way, the files will populate the mirrors, but people will not be able to access them via ftp/http/rsync until the bit-flip (chmod 755 or so). This is so that all mirrors will have complete content before people start downloading/installing.
If your 5.6 directory is open currently, then you may want to look at other rsync flags to fix it (we use -p).
-Jeff
Ahh. Makes sense... thank for that tip. I'll update our rsync to include the -p bit ...
Cheers,
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Sheltren Sent: April-05-11 5:22 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors. Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Paul Stewart pstewart@nexicomgroup.net wrote:
Could someone please explain the "bit flips" ? Sorry, I haven't taken any time to understand this .. is it just a matter of the correct rsync command switches?
Paul, the way that mirror syncing for a release works for CentOS (and many other distributions) is to setup the new directory such that it is *not* world readable (chmod 700 5.6/ for example). This way, the files will populate the mirrors, but people will not be able to access them via ftp/http/rsync until the bit-flip (chmod 755 or so). This is so that all mirrors will have complete content before people start downloading/installing.
If your 5.6 directory is open currently, then you may want to look at other rsync flags to fix it (we use -p).
-Jeff _______________________________________________ CentOS-mirror mailing list CentOS-mirror@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror
"PS" == Paul Stewart pstewart@nexicomgroup.net
Paul,
PS> Could someone please explain the "bit flips" ? Sorry, I PS> haven't taken any time to understand this .. is it just a PS> matter of the correct rsync command switches?
PS> In our rsync crontab we have:
PS> # CENTOS Mirror 01 * * * * www-data /usr/bin/rsync -rtlzv PS> --delete rsync://mirror.steadfast.net/centos/ /var/centos/
You should be using the -p flag to preserve permissions, which will change the permissions over when they're changed upstream. (We use
-vaH ${EXCLUDES} --numeric-ids \ --delay-updates \ --delete --delete-after
the -a flag includes -rlptgoD; -H preserves hard links, which is -also desirable.)
Some distros (like Fedora) do the staging behind a restricted directory and then ask mirrors to do the bitflip at a particular time by changing the permissions by hand or with a cron or at job, but CentOS appears to be propagating the bitflip through the mirror network instead.
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu System Administrator (909) 621-8754 Department of Mathematics Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* For System News: http://www.math.hmc.edu/computing/news/ or http://twitter.com/hmcmathcomp/. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
On 04/06/2011 08:21 PM, Claire M. Connelly wrote:
Some distros (like Fedora) do the staging behind a restricted directory and then ask mirrors to do the bitflip at a particular time by changing the permissions by hand or with a cron or at job, but CentOS appears to be propagating the bitflip through the mirror network instead.
We tried a few different things initially and doing it within the rsync's seemed to be the best and most effective way of getting this done. If there is something else that works better, we can look at that.
Although, I suspect not every mirror admin is or should be expected to do manual things like the private -> public switch.
btw, the only other option that came close to being adopted at the time ( ~ 2007 ) was by using a private/ directory, which should / would never be public. And then using hardlinks to make content visible when needed. But given that people run mirrors on various OS's using various httpd implementations that it was hard to get any level of agreement on what and how that private/ dir would be implemented.
- KB
Karanbir,
Fedora is the only distro we mirror that regularly asks mirrors to do a manual bitflip at release time, presumably because they've found that demand is sufficiently high as to make it worthwhile.
As it's only them, adding an at job to do the bitflip isn't a big deal, but if every distro did it, it would get annoying pretty quickly. So I think the hands-off method works great!
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire M. Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu System Administrator, Dept. of Mathematics, Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Definately hands off is better - we mirror Fedora as of recently and would probably not participate in bitflip request unless it could be automated.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of C.M. Connelly Sent: April-06-11 8:41 PM To: Mailing list for CentOS mirrors.; Karanbir Singh Subject: Re: [CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer
Karanbir,
Fedora is the only distro we mirror that regularly asks mirrors to do a manual bitflip at release time, presumably because they've found that demand is sufficiently high as to make it worthwhile.
As it's only them, adding an at job to do the bitflip isn't a big deal, but if every distro did it, it would get annoying pretty quickly. So I think the hands-off method works great!
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire M. Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu System Administrator, Dept. of Mathematics, Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"Paul Stewart" pstewart@nexicomgroup.net writes:
Definately hands off is better - we mirror Fedora as of recently and would probably not participate in bitflip request unless it could be automated.
It is -- more or less. Fedora encourage mirror admins to flip the bit manually just before official release time, but if you don't rsync will catch the correct permission on the next run anyway.
-
Adam -
Anthony Somerset -
Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale -
C.M. Connelly -
Claire M. Connelly
-
David Richardson -
florian＠gruendler.net -
J.H. -
Jeff Sheltren -
Karanbir Singh -
Kevin Stange -
Martynas "UAB Duomenų Centras" -
Nick Olsen -
Paul Stewart -
Prof. P. Sriram -
Ralph Angenendt -
Roelf Wichertjes