On Oct 29, 2009, at 10:52 PM, "J.H." <warthog9 at kernel.org> wrote: > Uwe Kiewel wrote: >> Tru Huynh schrieb: >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:59:22PM -0400, Nick Olsen wrote: >>>> Addition of jigdo yes. Replace ISO's no. >>>> Educating joe sixpack on using something new, well I like to use >>>> altercation avoidance. >>>> >>> please no top posting ;) >>> >>> There was a thread about jidgo in the archives and it boiled down >>> to: >>> - someone has to maintain the jidgo package in the CentOS tree >>> (how would a CentOS user for C3/4/5 use jidgo?) >>> - document it in the wiki (how to use, at least) >>> - someone needs to make it work from the current setup >>> - how much burden will it put on the mirrors? centos.org ones and >>> public ones? >>> (I have no experience on using it) >>> - no one volonteered. >>> - one more thing to check for the QA release process. >>> >>> back to you :) >> >> Ok. Understood. >> >> It was just an idea because Fedora do it successfuly since Fedora 6 >> and >> Debian do so as well. > > Ok back that monkey truck up slightly here. Fedora has *ONLY* been > doing it for the Fedora Spins stuff which, as you can imagine, an > *INCREDIBLY* low volume set of accesses. Debian is going to be > likewise, and I wouldn't exactly call it a popular thing from them. > > Speaking as a mirror here are my thoughts: > > - Cutting down on the working data set is a good thing, though I do > have > some serious reservations about this on a larger scale. > > - Claiming a webserver doesn't handle large files is a bogus > statement, > if your on Linux you have send_file() and that is darned fast and > efficient. It more or less doesn't matter what your file size is > for that. > > - If your on a client, or a server, and it doesn't support http > restarts > you really have to ask why? I can understand how *PAINFUL* that is > to a > mirror to do a random seek into the middle of a file, but once the > download has started it's effectively no additional overhead beyond > that. > > - Speaking to the apache module that auto-generates the iso on the > fly: > any mirror of any reasonable size will shoot this down in a heartbeat. > We already have an I/O problem on the systems, ram issues, etc. > Adding > something into apache that's going to thrash about and magically > generate this as it's requested is *WORSE* than the wasted disk space. > Again send_file() is your friend. > > My thoughts > ------------ > > Honestly if Centos is actively looking to eliminate the ISOs I would > tentatively support this, but Jigdo (at least the last time I used it) > is *ANYTHING* but userfriendly. It would *HAVE* to be as simple as > download a script, program, etc you get a download box and *poof* your > dvd comes out, no user interaction unless a lot of advanced options > are > selected somewhere, and last time I used it it wasn't that simple. > > Furthermore I think jigdo is likely going to be a lot of work, with > little payoff. From my gut reaction I think moving to more of a > universal network installer (ala http://boot.kernel.org w/ it's > network > installers, which happen to include Centos)[Disclaimer: I'm one of the > devs & the primary admin for http://boot.kernel.org] is a *LOT* more > intuitive to a user and a lot simpler to get them to use than Jigdo > ever > will be, and honestly it gets a user moving sooner and it can take > less > time anyway depending on what a user selects, has all of the > advantages > of Jigdo and with significantly fewer downsides. > > Just my $0.02 > > - John 'Warthog9' Hawley > Chief Kernel.org Administrator > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror I agree with the apache module not being feasable... On top of the fact you have additional resource usage from it you are making a huge assumtion that the mirror is running apache. As great as apache is, it is resource hog. Something that only serves high volume static files is rarely running apache. My 2 cents on that :) - Billy