Anthony Bryan wrote: > > I've seen this come up a few times, and since we're changing things... > > maybe we should rename "preference" to "priority" or something else > that's more intuitive. > > and change the numbering scheme while we're at it, if need be. > > any suggestions? >
Something that definitely needs clarifying: Is it an absolute priority/preference? Should clients *always* try higher-priority mirrors and only if they fail continue with the lower priority mirrors? Or does it change the probability of being selected in a random choice of mirror? Example: if I have mirror A with preference 10 and mirror B with pref 20 (assuming higher number is higher preference), does that mean mirror B is twice as likely to be used, or does it mean mirror A will be used if and only if mirror B can't be used? Or... should there be a way for a metalink author to choose between both behaviors? RFC 3782 gives a way to provide *both* a priority and a weight (see page 2 and 3). Equal-priority choices are randomly chosen, with probability of selection proportional to the given weight. I think this looks quite useful, maybe we could borrow it. A metalink could give weight depending on available bandwidth, and another could give a main server and another mirror that is strictly for fallback. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
