Given the initial feedback Jurgen provided on the infra lists about the potential number of downloads a day and expected size of each download, I think it would be prudent to take advantage of any assistance sourceforge might be able to provide here. What I'm thinking is some sort of hybrid approach where the "recommended" default download is a sourceforge link with the Apache mirrors as auxiliary optional links further down the page.
----- Original Message ----- > From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> > To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:23 AM > Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:03 AM >> Subject: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution >> >> I just had a call with Roberto from SourceForge in which he updated me >> on what they've done with the templates and extensions sites. I asked >> Roberto to send a summary to this list, but I just wanted to extend my >> thanks to him and the team at SourceForge, along with the people here >> in AOO and ASF infra who have helped. >> >> Roberto also asked if there is anything SF can do to help distributing >> the AOO 3.4 We've discussed this a few times but as we are now close >> to a release I think it is worth recapping and making sure everything >> is lined up OK. >> >> - what are the likely bandwidth requirements when the release goes out? > > As far as Infra is concerned, it will depend on the total size of the > artifacts > being released multiplied by the number of mirrors that need to download it > from > us over a 6 hour period. We are considering rate-limiting our rsync service > to lower the peak bandwidth needed. > >> >> - does ASF Infra feel confident the existing mirror network will support > this? > > I'd say most mirrors won't object once we give them a heads-up about how > much additional disk space and bandwidth will be required. It would help > if the PPMC could provide infra with an estimate of the expected number > of total downloads per day during the first week or two of release, combined > with the typical download size, so we may provide that information to the > mirror operators and let them decide whether to stay with us or drop out. > >> >> - can SF become a part of that mirror network in a sensible way? >> - note that SF does not provide direct links to the download, they >> provide an intermediate page with advertising > > The advertising does not exactly thrill me, and really isn't compatible with > how our mirror scripts work. > >> >> - should any of the old OOo mirrors be incorporated into the ASF mirror > system? >> - will they want the additional overhead brought by all other ASF > projects? >> >> My own feeling is that the ASF infra team would not really be >> interesting in changing the mirror system in any way, however I am >> *not* member of the infra team and cannot speak for them. Joe, of >> course is. If the PPMC sees the need to explore SF hosting then I >> suggest someone picks this up and liaises between ASF Infra, AOO and >> SF. IF the PPMC is confident that the existing mirror system is >> sufficient then no need to revisit. >> >> Ross >> >> -- >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >> Programme Leader (Open Development) >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com >> >
