[CentOS-mirror] Thoughts on DVD images

Jim Kusznir jkusznir at gmail.com
Fri May 21 16:12:43 UTC 2010

Sorry, I need to clarify one point of my original post.

When I talk about no ACLs, I didn't mean that there were no
restrictions at all; I meant no special ACLs such that "this host gets
the mirror content modified in this way; that host gets it modified
that way...".  Either fully open, or just a allow/deny based on public
mirrors that have registered with the centos mirrors team.

In my opinion, I don't see a reason for non-public mirrors to ever
talk to msync.  There are enough of the "tier 2" mirrors (non-msync
mirrors) that allow rsync, etc. that people should pull from them.
Many of them even have considerably more bandwidth than the msync ones
do (I regularly serve 40MB/s, and have gone as high as 60MB/s, and
could probably do more...).  Many of these public mirrors also run
rsync, as I now do, so its easy to pull from them.  For a couple
years, I ran a private/local-only mirror, and I always just rsync'ed
against a tier 2 mirror (such as osuosl.org).


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 05/19/2010 05:15 PM, Jim Kusznir wrote:
>> Presently, it is my understanding that there are two different repos
>> maintained: ones with dvd images, and ones without.
> The reasons for this split are mostly due to issues that have been a
> major factor in msync setup in the past, many of the issues are no
> longer relevant. We have been talking about refactoring the entire setup
> and over the next few weeks will start the process of.
>  > In fact,
>> I'd almost expect future major releases of CentOS (6+) to distribute
>> DVD isos instead of the CD disk 1 of xx isos.
> At the present moment, this is speculative, I dont think we should
> predecide how centos-6 or even > 5.5 are going to shape up, but we
> should make sure that we keep the doors open for any major change that
> comes in - or hasto be brought in.
>> So, I propose that the dvd-less mirror system is eliminated (all msync
>> mirrors carry DVDs).  No special ACLs either...
> I dont think ACL's should go at all. I think we need to have a good
> system in place, that makes it possible for large ublic mirrors to not
> need to contest with smaller localised private mirrors in order to get
> the tree out there, as soon as we are able to = and do that in a stable,
> sane manner.
> One of the options that is on the cards is to reduce the number of
> machines we have in msync down to maybe 8 - 10, and have them serve up a
> public rsync targets, while we move a bulk ( 20 to 25  odd ) of the
> msync machines into a private push only network, so in order to recieve
>  the tree from these machines, admins would need to host a key and
> allow rsync from specific IP's. The exact details of how that might
> work, or even IF we want to consider that, need to be worked out - but
> its one of the options to consider.
> One thing that we all need to keep in mind is that the .centos.org
> network of machines is hosted almost exclusively out of donor machines,
> running in DC's run by hosting companies and we rarely ever get more
> than 60 - 70mbps out of a single machine. There are a few exceptions,
> but only a 'few'. So we ideally want to focus on pushing to public
> mirrors with as much b/w as we can - and have the user-end of the
> spectrum pull from these public mirrors. And I dont see how to achieve
> something like that without ACL's in place.
> - KB
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-mirror mailing list
> CentOS-mirror at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror

More information about the CentOS-mirror mailing list