[CentOS-mirror] 5.6 is coming closer

Thu Apr 7 14:58:40 UTC 2011
Roelf Wichertjes <info at roelf.org>

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

Op 6 apr. 2011 om 20:42 heeft "Paul Stewart" <pstewart at 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 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