Billy Vierra wrote: > 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. I dunno, I run Apache quite successfully and I would argue I'm a high volume content provider. - John 'Warthog9' Hawley Chief Kernel.org Administrator