Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:55:30 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@dstc.edu.au> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <daniel.sobral@tcoip.com.br> Cc: hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.4 upcoming release/timetabling/mirroring Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.20.0109120052570.29054-100000@azure.dstc.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3B9E23C5.9080500@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > It just so happens that the packages distributions is what takes most > space. Distfiles may be 12 Gb, but it's only one thing. Packages go at > 4, 4.5 Gb and there is a copy for each release, one for each > architecture. Alas, there is a good chance that 5.0 will have more than > two architectures. it was a suggestion - i expected we would refine it.. if a few more people comment, maybe we can come up with something sensible. > So, from where I sit, it is much more important to keep distfiles and > cvsup source tree than keeping, say, 4.2-release packages. > > Honestly, I think people's priority vary too much for what you propose. > What I _would_ propose is that Tier-2 mirrors keep everything (CTM, > archive, snap and misc excepted), but just the latest release and stable > for both platforms. I think this would impose a lesser minimum disk > penalty, scale better, and see to most needs. Of course, whatever else a > Tier-2 may carry is up to each one. well, anyone can carry anything they'd like - i'm just trying to come up with a workable system for `official' mirrors which are at the very least a tier-2. it needs to be looked at from both sides too. at the very least there should be a minimum set of freebsd that is carried IMHO. cheers, -jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hubs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.4.20.0109120052570.29054-100000>