Baptiste Jonglez <[email protected]> wrote: rich> Proposal: We should eliminate all mirrors.
If the mirrors are ad-hoc, and are not listed as alternate A/AAAA RR, then
we might want to artificially rate-limit the rsync support. Are there some
pathologies here? Peers that repeated pull the same content?
> One thing that is maybe not clear: we don't manage the mirrors ourselves,
> and the mirrors are not used by downloads.openwrt.org. All "official"
> traffic is already handled by the CDN and our single download server, with
> old releases handled by the archive server. So, mirrors don't cost us
> much in term of time and infrastructure (except this traffic problem).
> So far, the machinery is just "the rsync server is open to all".
In the past, I've mirrored many things locally because I found that my builds
failed with timeouts.
> There is an incomplete list here: https://openwrt.org/downloads#mirrors
> I think public mirrors can still be useful, it leaves alternative choices
> if we have a big outage of the download server and the archive server
> (unlikely, but still possible). Another reason is better performance: the
> CDN helps but still needs to fetch content from the download server in
> Germany.
...
> That being said, I agree the current number of mirrors is kind of
> unreasonable for this purpose.
split out the uses onto different names/IPs (v6 makes this easy).
I assume all the CDNs can use v6.
> The idea of the 2-tiers system is precisely to delegate mirror
> distribution to a few trusted people/org that have the knowledge and
> infrastructure for this.
Works for me.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
