| 1 |
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 15:39, Tal Peer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Looking at the numbers you provided, i think we should seperate the |
| 3 |
> mirrors into two groups: Binary and Source. Binary mirrors would provide |
| 4 |
> GRPs and ISOs, and source mirrors will only provide distfiles. Mirrors |
| 5 |
> could provide both, of course. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> In the short term, there won't be too many binary mirrors (freeing almost |
| 8 |
> 17 gigs of free space is tempting), so we should encourage mirrors that |
| 9 |
> are high on diskspace to mirror both source and binary. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In the long term, this could also rise the numbers of mirrors, as mirror |
| 12 |
> provideres will need to 'waste' less disk space on the gentoo mirror (if |
| 13 |
> they choose to only mirror one type, that is). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Along the line of 'wasting' less disk space is the wasting of less |
| 16 |
bandwidth; would this not be a great time to start really pushing |
| 17 |
something like deltup (http://deltup.sourceforge.net/glep.html)? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The few times I have used deltup it has worked great; patch availability |
| 20 |
is the problem. If it were kept up to date, it could take quite a load |
| 21 |
off the servers. |
Archives