Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Processed: destruction of round-robin functionality is fucking up our mirrors and making Debian suck for many people, hence fixing this is a release-critical "wish""): > [stuff]
I've been skimreading this subthread and I have to say I'm not quite clear about what question you are trying to answer and why. I'll take a guess but please do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. We know that the load on various of the Debian servers is very asymmetrical and that this is (to say the least) unhelpful. >From the mail exchanges it would appear that the discussion here is an attempt to predict the visible effects of rule 9 behavour for the relevant set of IP addresses. Presumably this is intended to try to understand whether the imbalance is caused by rule 9. If I understand correctly, I think this isn't a good approach. The behaviour of a rule 9 host depends on its view of its local IP address. We have no data on what proportion of the relevant host populations have which addresses. On the other hand, the behaviour of a round robin honouring host depends on the frequency of DNS retries, past network topology history, etc., in a way that may be difficult to predict. (Note that some webcache configurations send pings to determine which of a set of possible upstreams are `closest', so we aren't just considering rule 9 clients and R-R clients.) Noone has presented any other explanation besides rule 9 for the very substantial traffic asymmetry. We do have anecdotal evidence that it used to be much better. And even if this particular asymmetry isn't due to this particular problem (or to look at it another way even if there are other things which would also need fixing) rule 9 is still unjustifiable. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]