| 1 |
So does you guys have any thoughts or opinions on this subject? |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
kabau |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:08:44PM -0500, Damon Conway wrote: |
| 6 |
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:22:38AM +0100, Colin Morey wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Do we have a defined number of minimum connections a server should |
| 8 |
> > allow? or are we basing on an had hoc basis, based upon transit and |
| 9 |
> > availability as well? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> That is an excellent question, and one I've yet to find a good answer |
| 12 |
> for. It is my opinion that we cannot afford to be too picky when |
| 13 |
> someone offers their services to us, but it also doesn't help to have |
| 14 |
> servers out there that can't perform. Unfortunatly, I've been too busy |
| 15 |
> with life to give this matter much thought. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The way I see it, we have three basic requirements for rsync mirrors. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 1. Enough available bandwidth to serve a substantial amount of data. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 2. Accurate and timely data. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> 3. Sufficient number of simultaneous logins to allow enough people to |
| 24 |
> actually use the mirror. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I would suggest that the mirror have at least a T1 of available |
| 27 |
> bandwidth. It doesn't have to dedicate the entire T1 to rsync |
| 28 |
> mirroring, but if all they have is ISDN, DSL, or cable, then they aren't |
| 29 |
> going to be pleased with rsync using all of their bandwidth. I would |
| 30 |
> suggest a minimum 128kb/s of available bandwidth for rsync bandwidth on |
| 31 |
> a mirror. This number would be better at 256kb/s, but 128kb/s should be |
| 32 |
> usable. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Some method needs to be developed for making sure that mirrors are updated |
| 35 |
> in a timely fashion, and have accurate copies of the master. There have |
| 36 |
> been several reports of out-of-date and bad data on mirrors. Right now, |
| 37 |
> we have people updating their mirror every 30 minutes on the 0 and 30. |
| 38 |
> This will quickly become inadequate if we continue to grow our number of |
| 39 |
> mirrors. Keeping an infrastructure like this healthy as it grows will |
| 40 |
> probably be the biggest task this admin team will face. I have lots of |
| 41 |
> ideas on this, but they can wait until we get some basic parameters down |
| 42 |
> for mirrors. Right now, it should be sufficient to develop an automated |
| 43 |
> system that checks for inaccurate and out of sync mirrors. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> The third item seems to be the big point everyone is interested in, and |
| 46 |
> in my opinion the least of our worries. However, I'm tired of hearing |
| 47 |
> people whine about it so I've given it some thought. This ties into |
| 48 |
> item one since the more people you have using a server, the more |
| 49 |
> bandwidth you need. I think we should have ratios of bandwidth to |
| 50 |
> max concurrent users. Maybe 5 users for every 128kb/s of available |
| 51 |
> bandwidth. Basically, to determine these numbers we need to determine |
| 52 |
> the average user's rsync transfer, and come up with an average sustained |
| 53 |
> data rate for an rsync transfer. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Now, these are just my opinions. What do y'all think? |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> Damon/kabau |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 61 |
> Gentoo-admin mailing list |
| 62 |
> Gentoo-admin@g.o |
| 63 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-admin |
Archives