From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 21 16:20: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from orion.ac.hmc.edu (Orion.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36D214D14 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:20:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brdavis@orion.ac.hmc.edu) Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by orion.ac.hmc.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03864; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:19:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:19:04 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Wes Peters Cc: Steve Kargl , Andre Oppermann , Jesper Skriver , Garance A Drosihn , John Polstra , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Please help spread the CVSup mirror load more evenly Message-ID: <20000121161904.B23771@orion.ac.hmc.edu> References: <200001212246.OAA36108@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <3888F01E.AF550589@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <3888F01E.AF550589@softweyr.com>; from wes@softweyr.com on Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 04:47:42PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 04:47:42PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Perhaps an option to CVSup to test a group of servers and render a "rating" > for each, or to choose a "best" one. Then an intelligent human being could > use this information to occasionally change which cvsup server they use. > > Such a tool wouldn't be specific to CVSup, of course, and probably already > exists in benchmarks. Suggestions? For the actual testing, netperf would probalby be a good choice assuming the server admins will cooperate (or the server was integrated into cvsupd). The normal version is a standalone program, but there is a libritized version as part of the gloperf daemon which is part of the globus project (www.globus.org). As to storing the list of ratings, it would be really nice if such a tool cached them on a per-subnet bases so us telecommuters can move around and cvsup from random ethernet ports with dhcp support. In general, ratings based on network performance are likely to be good for quite some time. The things you probably wouldn't want to cache would be servers loads. Randomly wondering off on a tangent, if clients had nice caches of network information, it might be nice if servers would keep eachother informed of their loads so if they were unnecessicairly busy though could say "go away, here's a list of everyone else's loads so you can pick a good one next time." Of course this is all idle chit-chat until the decididly non-trivial problem of out of sync servers is solved. -- Brooks -- "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message