From owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 10 09:24:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07E237B401 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [212.66.1.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DCD43FE0 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (gbshkj@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5AGO6B5099575; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:24:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h5AGO6Ol099574; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:24:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <200306101624.h5AGO6Ol099574@lurza.secnetix.de> To: kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU (Ken Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:24:06 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20030610160605.GB2099@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> from "Ken Smith" at Jun 10, 2003 12:06:05 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD 5.1 Released! X-BeenThere: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Distributions Hubs: mail sup ftp List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:24:13 -0000 Ken Smith wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:48:46PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > How about some kind of a "push model"? > > One disadvantage other than the design/implementation work is load > on the source. Isn't ftp-master suffering a little bit even now? > What happens if all of the first-tier servers are told to do updates > at the same time? Good point. On the other hand -- When someone from the RE team posts a message to hubs@ like "5.1 for i386 available now!", I guess many people will start their sync jobs immediately. That's already some kind of "push". So there's the same load situation, except everyone has started the thing manually, instead of having it initiated automatically. > The cron job based updates at least have the advantage of "naturally" > spreading the load on ftp-master out over time a little bit I would > think. My cron jobs running in the wee hours of the morning run at > a different time than the cron jobs running in the wee hours of the > morning in Australia. :-) Well, those cron jobs are a different thing. I have divided my FTP mirror into things which change often (such as distfiles, -stable and -current packages), and things which are transferred once and then never change again (e.g. releases, packages for releases). I only have cron jobs for those things that change often, but not for the others. After all, why should I sync 5.1-RELEASE over and over again, once it is there? That "push model" would be applied only to the latter, e.g. for releases (and betas, and RCs) and the accompanying package sets. If the load is really a serious problem, then the "push" notifications can be sent out with a certain delay between them. I'm sure it can be done. Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "Der Einsatz von MS-Mailsystemen ist sehr erfolgreich, aber leider vor allem bei der Verbreitung von Viren wie Melissa, Papa oder explore.zip. Dies ist durchaus auch in der Architektur dieser Software begruendet." (unbekannt)