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
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Carsten Otto
<otto@××××××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote:
> Dear Gentoo admins, > > it seems you made some changes to the data you distribute as > "gentoo-portage".
Well, the infra team didn't make any changes. The gentoo-portage tree is a living thing that adapts as the software becomes more complex. There was a change to better protect users against timestamp oddities (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409445)
> Before the change we had to manually take care that the corresponding > file system has enough inodes, as gentoo-portage seems to have very many > files with only a tiny size. The recent change seems to have increased > the number of inodes substantially. This caused our file system to run > out of inodes and we had to manually create a fresh file system > (extending the number of inodes is not possible without also increasing > the size of the file system).
We don't suggest any particular filesystem. That is up to you to implement for your own needs. I'm sorry that you ran out of inodes (our infrastructure did too, our ramdisks became full)
> To my knowledge there was no announcement for this change. With such an > announcement the time of having incomplete data (roughly one day in our > case) you may have observed for our mirror (which is part of some > round-robin DNS scheme in the gentoo.org domain) could have been lowered > to a few minutes.
Your mirror is not part of the rsync.gentoo.org rotation. We reserve that for officially managed Gentoo hosts only.
> Furthermore, it seems that your master mirror currently is overloaded. > My guess is that many mirrors experience problems similar to ours and > re-sync more often than normally.
There was just a bug that was causing metadata/md5-cache to be resynced everytime. (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410505) This may have explained the load, but it shouldn't have been too bad, that box that you access only transfers 15G/day.
> > Please tell us ("us" as in "all the mirror admins") what happened and > how to deal with the situation. Please also take care to communicate > changes in the future.
Again, sorry for the trouble(s). This was the first time that such a large increase in filesize happened. To be honest, we did not expect fallout like this. Now we know for next time, if there is a next time. Also, there is plans to reduce the footprint of files/inodes in the short term so it should be back to previous sizes in some time. -Jeremy