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 at centos.org > [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces at 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 at centos.org > [mailto:centos-mirror-bounces at 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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-mirror mailing list > CentOS-mirror at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-mirror