Gentoo Archives: gentoo-mirrors

From: Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
To: FTP <ftp@×××××××××××××××××××.de>, mirror-admin@g.o, gentoo-mirrors@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-mirrors] Re: Recent changes to gentoo-portage
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:04:22
Message-Id: CAMxqorWZmyw9HR5TuLtJZaUfL_OZRXaCmyybvJg_bjwpoaeRPg@mail.gmail.com
1 On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Carsten Otto
2 <otto@××××××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote:
3 > Dear Gentoo admins,
4 >
5 > it seems you made some changes to the data you distribute as
6 > "gentoo-portage".
7
8 Well, the infra team didn't make any changes. The gentoo-portage tree
9 is a living thing that adapts as the software becomes more complex.
10 There was a change to better protect users against timestamp oddities
11 (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409445)
12
13 > Before the change we had to manually take care that the corresponding
14 > file system has enough inodes, as gentoo-portage seems to have very many
15 > files with only a tiny size. The recent change seems to have increased
16 > the number of inodes substantially. This caused our file system to run
17 > out of inodes and we had to manually create a fresh file system
18 > (extending the number of inodes is not possible without also increasing
19 > the size of the file system).
20
21 We don't suggest any particular filesystem. That is up to you to
22 implement for your own needs. I'm sorry that you ran out of inodes
23 (our infrastructure did too, our ramdisks became full)
24
25 > To my knowledge there was no announcement for this change. With such an
26 > announcement the time of having incomplete data (roughly one day in our
27 > case) you may have observed for our mirror (which is part of some
28 > round-robin DNS scheme in the gentoo.org domain) could have been lowered
29 > to a few minutes.
30
31 Your mirror is not part of the rsync.gentoo.org rotation. We reserve
32 that for officially managed Gentoo hosts only.
33
34 > Furthermore, it seems that your master mirror currently is overloaded.
35 > My guess is that many mirrors experience problems similar to ours and
36 > re-sync more often than normally.
37
38 There was just a bug that was causing metadata/md5-cache to be
39 resynced everytime. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410505)
40 This may have explained the load, but it shouldn't have been too bad,
41 that box that you access only transfers 15G/day.
42
43 >
44 > Please tell us ("us" as in "all the mirror admins") what happened and
45 > how to deal with the situation. Please also take care to communicate
46 > changes in the future.
47
48 Again, sorry for the trouble(s). This was the first time that such a
49 large increase in filesize happened. To be honest, we did not expect
50 fallout like this. Now we know for next time, if there is a next time.
51 Also, there is plans to reduce the footprint of files/inodes in the
52 short term so it should be back to previous sizes in some time.
53
54 -Jeremy