Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 06:27:16 -0500 From: "Francisco Reyes" <fran@reyes.somos.net> To: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Zero Sum" <count@shalimar.net.au> Subject: Re: New US CVSup mirrors Message-ID: <200011201123.GAA95856@sanson.reyes.somos.net> In-Reply-To: <00112018170204.61849@shalimar.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:17:02 +1100, Zero Sum wrote: >If you are going to try a second mirror within a short timeframe, it has to >be further up the food chain. > >If the server you select is not available, then an automatic switch to the >next one up the CVS mirror food chain might work. It may still be easier if the servers reported a last update date or some other unique way of identifying last update. The client could use this flag(s) to detect a mirror less up to date than the source tree been updated and display an error which would require some kind of override flag. After a little more thought there is another problem with your approach. It would basically require some server to always be able to indicate the next machine on the "food chain", but what happens when that machine is too busy? In other words that approach simply adds another possible step which may lessen the bottleneck and is more scalable, but is not a distributed approach. IMHO it is best to try to use schemes which distribute the load/tasks as much as possible. francisco Moderator of the Corporate BSD list http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011201123.GAA95856>