On 25/03/2014 01:44, Dave Reisner wrote:
Right, but throwing this responsibility on the arms of Arch developers isn't really a solution, either, without quiescence. You seem to be of the mindset of that adding this to the archlinux.org domain will magically lighten your own sysadmin load.
I'm not expecting less sysadmin load, I could perfectly handle that for the time to come. But maybe one day, younger guy will replace me or worst if I met the bus factor.
While I think the idea is neat, I don't think is has a place underneath archlinux.org -- we'd be taking a step towards supporting partial upgrades (which we refuse to support everywhere else). Before you mention the AUR, remember that the AUR hosts source packages; not binary packages. I don't think we change anything about that. Partial upgrade are not supported. We already have to handle users doing this, and we still continue to kill them if there system is not up-to-date before they report their issue.
I'm suggesting an archlinux archive, not changing our successful rolling release model.
And the SLA? This all seems reasonable at a glance, but I can't speak to how this would impact our budgeting. http://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/service-level
However, archive service is not a critical service, we can stay at basic level.
Seems like this is just three different ways to spin the same point. We can restructure to repo to make it more clone-friendly if that's all that's needed. I don't know how to do this, I'm interested!
Are you suggesting that storing the whole ARM archive into git is a good idea?
Having something with faster access and in a similar hierarchy may have use cases.
How often do you use the git repo? Everyday. Did you try to clone the aur-mirror repo?
$ time git clone http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git Cloning into 'aur-mirror'... ^C git clone http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git 0,00s user 0,01s system 0% cpu 2:30,39 total Not even started in 2m30s.
Are you really suggesting that mirroring 300GB-3TB of data has no cost? Yes, no *extra* cost for us.
Who's hosting the mirrors? Like for our current package mirrors. Everyone who offer its help.
Have they agreed to shoulder the additional storage and bandwidth requirements? You probably miss my suggestion to have separate archive mirrors.
Do you have any metrics to show how many 30 day users you have? Downloads per day? Week? Bandwidth consumed? I'm really interested in knowing how much impact this actually has.... Impact is insignificant on my server.
Last week network graph: - https://horus.seblu.net/~seblu/archive/if_eth0.png - https://horus.seblu.net/~seblu/archive/fw_packets.png - https://horus.seblu.net/~seblu/archive/fw_forwarded.png -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://seblu.net | Twitter: @seblu42 GPG: 0x2072D77A