FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-14-2010, 06:29 PM
"David C. Rankin"
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 09/14/2010 12:08 PM, Fess wrote:

1)Have you heard about 3rd party mirrors?

Yep - it's bandwidth for somebody


2)People who use gnome must die. No, really - too much traffic on servers.

To each his own - I'm using fluxbox at the moment (very small)


3)With local mirror you have fast internet, i think.
I'm talking about "My slow internet". Go figure, my ISP is the same for
home/work. Home I get 5M down + fixed IP for $65, for work (same ISP, but
considered 'commercial' I get 1M down + fixed IP for $90) -- screw job for sure.
A 1M pipe is a really small pipe for gigabit downloads


--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
 
Old 09-14-2010, 06:36 PM
Fess
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 13:29 Tue 14 Sep , David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 09/14/2010 12:08 PM, Fess wrote:
>> 1)Have you heard about 3rd party mirrors?
> Yep - it's bandwidth for somebody
>
>> 2)People who use gnome must die. No, really - too much traffic on servers.
> To each his own - I'm using fluxbox at the moment (very small)
>
>> 3)With local mirror you have fast internet, i think.
> I'm talking about "My slow internet". Go figure, my ISP is the same for
> home/work. Home I get 5M down + fixed IP for $65, for work (same ISP, but
> considered 'commercial' I get 1M down + fixed IP for $90) -- screw job
> for sure. A 1M pipe is a really small pipe for gigabit downloads
>
> --
> David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
> Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> Telephone: (936) 715-9333
> Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
> www.rankinlawfirm.com

I still don't get it.. You have small pipe. But a lot of people have bigger. So - if you can't use - do not use it.
Why EVERYONE shouldn't use it?
--
 
Old 09-14-2010, 06:45 PM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Fess <killall_humans@lavabit.com> wrote:
> I still don't get it.. You have small pipe. But a lot of people have bigger. So - if you can't use - do not use it.
> Why EVERYONE shouldn't use it?

it really is much more appropriate for everyone involved if you just
use a shared cache, and respectably consider the truth that if you're
not a seed, you're a leech. you say gnome=too much traffic, then wtf
would you want to sync:

gnome + kde + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> +
<insert> + <insert> + <insert> + ... + ...

every single time they are updated, when you're not even going to use
it 90% of it? _that_ sounds like "too much traffic" to me.

use what you need; no more, no less. anything else is greedy and wasteful.

C Anthony
 
Old 09-14-2010, 07:09 PM
Fess
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 13:45 Tue 14 Sep , C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Fess <killall_humans@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > I still don't get it.. You have small pipe. But a lot of people have bigger. So - if you can't use - do not use it.
> > Why EVERYONE shouldn't use it?
>
> it really is much more appropriate for everyone involved if you just
> use a shared cache, and respectably consider the truth that if you're
> not a seed, you're a leech. you say gnome=too much traffic, then wtf
> would you want to sync:
>
> gnome + kde + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> + <insert> +
> <insert> + <insert> + <insert> + ... + ...
>
> every single time they are updated, when you're not even going to use
> it 90% of it? _that_ sounds like "too much traffic" to me.
>
> use what you need; no more, no less. anything else is greedy and wasteful.
>
> C Anthony

Word 'irony' says something to you?

Yes, people who sync kde or gnome do it pretty often(new releases common thing). Why don't we stop them?
Because repository exist for downloading from it(unexpectadly, yeah?).
I'm downloading about 25-30 packages every night(OH MY GOD SUCH A WASTE!!). Let's start again - do you REALLY think it's too wasteful?
--
 
Old 09-14-2010, 07:27 PM
Nathan Wayde
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 14/09/10 19:45, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Fess<killall_humans@lavabit.com> wrote:

I still don't get it.. You have small pipe. But a lot of people have bigger. So - if you can't use - do not use it.
Why EVERYONE shouldn't use it?


it really is much more appropriate for everyone involved if you just
use a shared cache, and respectably consider the truth that if you're
not a seed, you're a leech. you say gnome=too much traffic, then wtf
would you want to sync:

gnome + kde +<insert> +<insert> +<insert> +<insert> +<insert> +
<insert> +<insert> +<insert> + ... + ...

every single time they are updated, when you're not even going to use
it 90% of it? _that_ sounds like "too much traffic" to me.

use what you need; no more, no less. anything else is greedy and wasteful.

C Anthony



here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the
cache) use a local mirror for:


to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my
systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i
simply get the packages from the master,

cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact.

now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because:

1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror.
2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server.
3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for
all the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror.


now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then
please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local
mirror causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these
problems actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad
with not much of a valid reason and nothing being done to further
educate us the users.


You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is
that ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the
same as I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have
been said the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it
and these alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best.
 
Old 09-15-2010, 12:13 AM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Wayde <disposaboy@konnichi.com> wrote:
> here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the cache)
> use a local mirror for:
>
> to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my
> systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i simply
> get the packages from the master,
> cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact.

shared cache won't solve that sure... but there are better solutions:

) if you can get it from master, then it sounds like you have a LAN
connection; tunnel a connection thru master...
) if you have a LAN, what can't some machines have access anyway?
) if you don't have a LAN, you are manually moving packages? you
could do that without a local mirror
) if you have a LAN, but _cannot_ allow some access to the net, then
use a different method like a caching proxy

local mirror = quick/easy crutch to avoid better utilization of
local/peer resources

i use a homebrew proxy/cache solution for my home, works fine. one
machine pretends to be a repo, others look to it for packages... easy.
i'm not using this exact version now, but i implemented this (rather
crappily) while first learning python:

"pacproxy (or something that vaguely resembles an apt-proxy clone)"
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=87115

> now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because:
>
> 1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror.
> 2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server.
> 3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for all
> the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror.
>
> now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then
> please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local mirror
> causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these problems
> actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad with not much
> of a valid reason and nothing being done to further educate us the users.

i don't think it's even about whether or not it _is_ causing a
problem, and more a preemptive move to discourage naive
implementations. sure, if you have a heterogeneous environment of 200
machines, then a local mirror probably isn't too bad an idea... but it
still isn't needed, as faster/better/cheaper methods are available.

in my opinion, if you're not publicly seeding your mirror, then you
don't need it; else you probably only want it due to an extreme case
of laziness. sure maybe mirror XYZ can handle constant sync's from
everyone looking at it... but really, do them a favor, and don't; it
might piss them off :-).

> You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is that
> ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the same as
> I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have been said
> the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it and these
> alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best.

yeah i don't really know the politics here, or have even seen the
script. in my own experience back in the day syncing ubuntu repos
(for easy install at remote locations from large USB key when client
requirements are unknown)... you likely flat out don't need it, and
there are _very_ few legitimate use cases for it (the parenthesized
use case above is about the best one i know).

all i'm suggesting is that just because you can and it's easy doesn't
mean you should. but hey, i don't run a mirror, and extreme leeching
won't affect me, so ultimately i could care less; if i did though, i
would monitor for this kind of crap... i mean, doesn't the official
arch mirror impose similar restrictions? just do you part to not be
excessive.

does one check out the entire library on the possibility of reading 10 books?

C Anthony
 
Old 09-15-2010, 04:20 AM
Fess
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 19:13 Tue 14 Sep , C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Wayde <disposaboy@konnichi.com> wrote:
> > here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the cache)
> > use a local mirror for:
> >
> > to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my
> > systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i simply
> > get the packages from the master,
> > cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact.
>
> shared cache won't solve that sure... but there are better solutions:
>
> ) if you can get it from master, then it sounds like you have a LAN
> connection; tunnel a connection thru master...
> ) if you have a LAN, what can't some machines have access anyway?
> ) if you don't have a LAN, you are manually moving packages? you
> could do that without a local mirror
> ) if you have a LAN, but _cannot_ allow some access to the net, then
> use a different method like a caching proxy
>
> local mirror = quick/easy crutch to avoid better utilization of
> local/peer resources
>
> i use a homebrew proxy/cache solution for my home, works fine. one
> machine pretends to be a repo, others look to it for packages... easy.
> i'm not using this exact version now, but i implemented this (rather
> crappily) while first learning python:
>
> "pacproxy (or something that vaguely resembles an apt-proxy clone)"
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=87115
>
> > now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because:
> >
> > 1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror.
> > 2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server.
> > 3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for all
> > the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror.
> >
> > now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then
> > please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local mirror
> > causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these problems
> > actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad with not much
> > of a valid reason and nothing being done to further educate us the users.
>
> i don't think it's even about whether or not it _is_ causing a
> problem, and more a preemptive move to discourage naive
> implementations. sure, if you have a heterogeneous environment of 200
> machines, then a local mirror probably isn't too bad an idea... but it
> still isn't needed, as faster/better/cheaper methods are available.
>
> in my opinion, if you're not publicly seeding your mirror, then you
> don't need it; else you probably only want it due to an extreme case
> of laziness. sure maybe mirror XYZ can handle constant sync's from
> everyone looking at it... but really, do them a favor, and don't; it
> might piss them off :-).
>
> > You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is that
> > ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the same as
> > I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have been said
> > the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it and these
> > alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best.
>
> yeah i don't really know the politics here, or have even seen the
> script. in my own experience back in the day syncing ubuntu repos
> (for easy install at remote locations from large USB key when client
> requirements are unknown)... you likely flat out don't need it, and
> there are _very_ few legitimate use cases for it (the parenthesized
> use case above is about the best one i know).
>
> all i'm suggesting is that just because you can and it's easy doesn't
> mean you should. but hey, i don't run a mirror, and extreme leeching
> won't affect me, so ultimately i could care less; if i did though, i
> would monitor for this kind of crap... i mean, doesn't the official
> arch mirror impose similar restrictions? just do you part to not be
> excessive.
>
> does one check out the entire library on the possibility of reading 10 books?
>
> C Anthony

I think, i know(and others, who use this method) better what i'm doing, and why i am doing it.
So, i tell you once more - community think, that this is useful.
People, who say "Hey, man! I have server, and rsync installed, add me please to the list of 3rd party mirrors" know what they do.
If they offer this service - they think it helps. If they would have 'tiny pipe'(or something else tiny) they wouldn't do it.
So, i still don't understand why opinion of community ignored.

--
 
Old 09-15-2010, 05:51 AM
Nathan Wayde
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 15/09/10 01:13, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Wayde<disposaboy@konnichi.com> wrote:

here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the cache)
use a local mirror for:

to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my
systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i simply
get the packages from the master,
cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact.


shared cache won't solve that sure... but there are better solutions:

) if you can get it from master, then it sounds like you have a LAN
connection; tunnel a connection thru master...
) if you have a LAN, what can't some machines have access anyway?
) if you don't have a LAN, you are manually moving packages? you
could do that without a local mirror
) if you have a LAN, but _cannot_ allow some access to the net, then
use a different method like a caching proxy

local mirror = quick/easy crutch to avoid better utilization of
local/peer resources

i use a homebrew proxy/cache solution for my home, works fine. one
machine pretends to be a repo, others look to it for packages... easy.
i'm not using this exact version now, but i implemented this (rather
crappily) while first learning python:

"pacproxy (or something that vaguely resembles an apt-proxy clone)"
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=87115



from the sounds of it all those solutions require an internet
connection. my use-case is about installing on-demand what i want
without an internet connection - the same reason i never clear my cache
when i uninstall stuff. If i'm on the train and working on a
presentation or something and i need to make some graphic i need to know
that i will have the apps i need. this has saved me before where apps i
had were inadequate for something that popped up while i had no internet
connection. the fact that i synced everything to my desktop then copied
it onto my laptop meant that i wasn't syncing the mirror twice.



now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because:

1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror.
2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server.
3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for all
the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror.

now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then
please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local mirror
causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these problems
actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad with not much
of a valid reason and nothing being done to further educate us the users.


i don't think it's even about whether or not it _is_ causing a
problem, and more a preemptive move to discourage naive
implementations. sure, if you have a heterogeneous environment of 200
machines, then a local mirror probably isn't too bad an idea... but it
still isn't needed, as faster/better/cheaper methods are available.

in my opinion, if you're not publicly seeding your mirror, then you
don't need it; else you probably only want it due to an extreme case
of laziness. sure maybe mirror XYZ can handle constant sync's from
everyone looking at it... but really, do them a favor, and don't; it
might piss them off :-).



you do realize the average daily sync in repo is only a few hundred megs
right? and that's mainly because of the large packages which come in
occasionally like kde gnome, OOo, eclipse, etc.


and i don't see how removing the wiki solves anything, it rather makes
it worse IMHO. it was simply removed with a vague message pointing to a
wiki that doesn't do much better. iirc there was supposedly a warning at
the top of the original wiki and no-one ever read it. this sounds to me
like someone fancies them-self a mind-reader or something. on a more
serious note, let's be honest and say that putting a warning at the top
of a page with several subsections that warns mostly about something
further down the page is just idiotic.



You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is that
ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the same as
I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have been said
the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it and these
alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best.


yeah i don't really know the politics here, or have even seen the
script. in my own experience back in the day syncing ubuntu repos
(for easy install at remote locations from large USB key when client
requirements are unknown)... you likely flat out don't need it, and
there are _very_ few legitimate use cases for it (the parenthesized
use case above is about the best one i know).

all i'm suggesting is that just because you can and it's easy doesn't
mean you should. but hey, i don't run a mirror, and extreme leeching
won't affect me, so ultimately i could care less; if i did though, i
would monitor for this kind of crap... i mean, doesn't the official
arch mirror impose similar restrictions? just do you part to not be
excessive.

does one check out the entire library on the possibility of reading 10 books?

C Anthony



well the ARM is like an archive it's not really a public mirror like the
rest, it's a last resort kinda thing. the idea is that is wants to cache
every package (or as much as possible) that hits the repos, if my script
is gonna cause a problem then I'd very much like to know about it but
alas no-one seems to know what these problems are.
 
Old 09-15-2010, 06:25 AM
C Anthony Risinger
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Nathan Wayde <disposaboy@konnichi.com> wrote:
> from the sounds of it all those solutions require an internet connection. my
> use-case is about installing on-demand what i want without an internet
> connection - the same reason i never clear my cache when i uninstall stuff.
> If i'm on the train and working on a presentation or something and i need to
> make some graphic i need to know that i will have the apps i need. this has
> saved me before where apps i had were inadequate for something that popped
> up while i had no internet connection. the fact that i synced everything to
> my desktop then copied it onto my laptop meant that i wasn't syncing the
> mirror twice.

hmm, yeah that seems like a good case i suppose; it is very similar to
the use case i had with ubuntu... no possible internet connection, and
not knowing ahead of time, at all, what packages would be needed
(hardware/etc.).

> you do realize the average daily sync in repo is only a few hundred megs
> right? and that's mainly because of the large packages which come in
> occasionally like kde gnome, OOo, eclipse, etc.

yes; once you have defeated "the big download", then it's much
lighter... albeit hundreds of megs multiplied out is still a
significant number. i'm not against the idea of local mirrors, i just
think they are not appropriate for 90+% of users, and should created
with discretion. in my ubuntu case, it took _forever_ to download,
then i tried to move it to another disk and corrupted the whole damn
thing somehow; what a waste.

> and i don't see how removing the wiki solves anything, it rather makes it
> worse IMHO. it was simply removed with a vague message pointing to a wiki
> that doesn't do much better. iirc there was supposedly a warning at the top
> of the original wiki and no-one ever read it. this sounds to me like someone
> fancies them-self a mind-reader or something. on a more serious note, let's
> be honest and say that putting a warning at the top of a page with several
> subsections that warns mostly about something further down the page is just
> idiotic.

i'm really at a loss here; i'm not sure if i ever even saw this page
in it's original form. ultimately, i do think the practice should be
discouraged, but there is little to gain from trying to obscure it
either.

> well the ARM is like an archive it's not really a public mirror like the
> rest, it's a last resort kinda thing. the idea is that is wants to cache
> every package (or as much as possible) that hits the repos, if my script is
> gonna cause a problem then I'd very much like to know about it but alas
> no-one seems to know what these problems are.

while i haven't used the ARM service, i have read (and even written
indirectly) about it; it is a great idea. I am actually _all_ about
the "everyone has it all" idea, but in the form of a new,
next-generation package manager, and a P2P-based distribution
platform, where we can all benefit from each other's leechiness :-)

at any rate, i don't have anything further to add that's of interest
or useful; i trust further arguments will be respected, and a sound
compromise can be discovered.

C Anthony
 
Old 09-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Matthew Gyurgyik
 
Default 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

On 09/15/2010 12:20 AM, Fess wrote:

On 19:13 Tue 14 Sep , C Anthony Risinger wrote:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Nathan Wayde<disposaboy@konnichi.com> wrote:

here's what I'd(and I imagine most others who know about sharing the cache)
use a local mirror for:

to be able to sync all other systems from it. plain and simple. if my
systems don't have internet connection or something like that then i simply
get the packages from the master,
cache sharing doesn't and cannot solve that problem at all, that's a fact.

shared cache won't solve that sure... but there are better solutions:

) if you can get it from master, then it sounds like you have a LAN
connection; tunnel a connection thru master...
) if you have a LAN, what can't some machines have access anyway?
) if you don't have a LAN, you are manually moving packages? you
could do that without a local mirror
) if you have a LAN, but _cannot_ allow some access to the net, then
use a different method like a caching proxy

local mirror = quick/easy crutch to avoid better utilization of
local/peer resources

i use a homebrew proxy/cache solution for my home, works fine. one
machine pretends to be a repo, others look to it for packages... easy.
i'm not using this exact version now, but i implemented this (rather
crappily) while first learning python:

"pacproxy (or something that vaguely resembles an apt-proxy clone)"
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=87115


now to the bandwidth issue. it's obviously bogus, because:

1) they assume everyone/(lots of people) is going to create a local mirror.
2) they assume that they're all going to sync from the same server.
3) they assume this extra bandwidth waste actually causes a problem for all
the mirrors - i.e that there's only 1 mirror.

now, if my assumptions are wrong thus leading to false conclusions then
please correct me, but so far all I've heard is whining about local mirror
causing problems for the mirrors but nothing about what these problems
actually are, in the meantime the original wiki was deemed bad with not much
of a valid reason and nothing being done to further educate us the users.

i don't think it's even about whether or not it _is_ causing a
problem, and more a preemptive move to discourage naive
implementations. sure, if you have a heterogeneous environment of 200
machines, then a local mirror probably isn't too bad an idea... but it
still isn't needed, as faster/better/cheaper methods are available.

in my opinion, if you're not publicly seeding your mirror, then you
don't need it; else you probably only want it due to an extreme case
of laziness. sure maybe mirror XYZ can handle constant sync's from
everyone looking at it... but really, do them a favor, and don't; it
might piss them off :-).


You can probably tell that I'm annoyed by this and the simple fact is that
ARM sync script was based off the script on that wiki, it's not the same as
I changed a lot of options to cater to my own needs but as have been said
the script was bad, no-one is telling us what was bad about it and these
alternative methods are wholly inadequate at best.

yeah i don't really know the politics here, or have even seen the
script. in my own experience back in the day syncing ubuntu repos
(for easy install at remote locations from large USB key when client
requirements are unknown)... you likely flat out don't need it, and
there are _very_ few legitimate use cases for it (the parenthesized
use case above is about the best one i know).

all i'm suggesting is that just because you can and it's easy doesn't
mean you should. but hey, i don't run a mirror, and extreme leeching
won't affect me, so ultimately i could care less; if i did though, i
would monitor for this kind of crap... i mean, doesn't the official
arch mirror impose similar restrictions? just do you part to not be
excessive.

does one check out the entire library on the possibility of reading 10 books?

C Anthony

I think, i know(and others, who use this method) better what i'm doing, and why i am doing it.
So, i tell you once more - community think, that this is useful.
People, who say "Hey, man! I have server, and rsync installed, add me please to the list of 3rd party mirrors" know what they do.
If they offer this service - they think it helps. If they would have 'tiny pipe'(or something else tiny) they wouldn't do it.
So, i still don't understand why opinion of community ignored.


Ok a few things here....

1. There are a *few* instances where having a local mirror is warranted
2. There are many, many, many packages that are in the repos that *you*
don't use! Every time you download one of these packages it is wasted
bandwidth!
3. Mirror bandwidth is not free! Every time you are downloading unused
packages you are wasting the mirrors money! Why waste money? (Keep point
1 in mind)

4. @Fess you and a few other people do not make the community.
5. The majority of the community will agree that hosting a local mirror
is silly considering that there are alternatives!
6. I am quite sure that mirror operators are not and will not be happy
with users downloading gigs of data a month so they can have their own
local mirror.
7. Remember, the local mirrors are generously mirroring for us. They are
under *no obligation* to do so! Treat them with respect!
8. If point 1 applies, then those people should be more than capable of
producing their own scripts.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org