On 30 September 2010 14:16, Dan McGee wrote:

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Guillaume ALAUX wrote:

...

On 30 September 2010 11:41, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

Currently we have almost 90 active mirrors in the official mirror list and new requests for becoming an official mirror are appearing quite often. However, not all mirrors are good ones (outdated, incomplete, admins don't respond, etc). I marked inactive many of them during past months (including about 20 during FrOSCon), and will continue to do this until all of the mirrors meet the requirements.

22 mirrors that are in the official list did not move to the 2-tier scheme yet, which means we do not know where do they sync from, admins did not respond or there is no known email address of the admin. These will be removed from the list very soon.

If they are syncing and up-to-date (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That seems pretty silly to me. We one remaining that seems to have fallen off the map (unix.pl), 5 that are out of date, and one without a lastsync file.

...

...

If you are using some mirror that was removed from the list recently and you know how to contact the admin - let me know.

Considering the fact that there is no package signing support yet I don't see a reason why we should have that many mirrors, especially when they don't meet the requirements.

Recently I had to defer some requests to become an official mirror from some private sites. I apologize that this caused a frustration of their admins and hope that the reasons are understandable.

To make this fair to everyone I'm thinking about (temporary) putting the process of adding new mirrors on hold.

-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Hi Roman,

On the "mirrors list page" [1] I see 56 "untiered" mirrors. May we know which are the 22 you mention? Just say so if you would like some help trying to get in touch with some mirror admins.

You probably missed the "active" column there.

...

For instance I see these French or Belgian mirrors : These 2 were removed from the mirrorlist  -ftp.belnet.be  -ftp.free.fr

And this one is 3 weeks old and untiered:  -mir1.archlinux.fr

I could try to mail them in French...

No one will ever stand in your way of helping out. I'm sure you can chip in; if you start doing a lot you can probably get in the coveted "Mirror Admin" group. :P

-Dan

Hum... that was based on the DE Arch status page (https://www.archlinux.de/?page=MirrorStatus) but you're right, I should rely on the ORG "mirror" and "mirror/status" : - http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/ - http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/ That said I just check these two and they don't even have the multilib repo nor a kernel26 that is newer than 2.6.34-1 : Server = http://ftp.belnet.be/mirror/archlinux.org/$repo/os/$arch Server = ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.archlinux.org/$repo/os/$arch Both were removed from the mirrorlist. I guess they belong to the 22. I'll try to get in touch with their admins.

if you start doing a lot you can probably get in the coveted "Mirror Admin" group. :P That sounds way to sarcastic to be a group I want to belong to :)

-- Guillaume

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 15:16, Dan McGee wrote:

...

If they are syncing and up-to-date (http://www.archlinux.org/mirrors/status/), then why remove them? That seems pretty silly to me.

No known admin email address or no response. No known upstream. I agree that these may not be very solid reasons, but I see no other way to bring things to order.

If we will need to change something within our mirroring scheme (e.g. use of mirrorbrain or geodns, or some other change) - we will have the problem contacting mirror admins again.

If we would not disable rsync access for non-tier1 mirrors on rsync.archlinux.org we would never hear from some mirror admins, that I was unable to contact until their mirror stopped working (and BTW, some didn't even notice that at all).

It may be that my frustration influences my view, so if you think I'm totally wrong - I will keep things as they are now.

First, I 100% understand the frustration. I'm only saying keep it in perspective- if we end up making a change that breaks these mirrors that have gone MIA, that is fine, and indicates forward progress on some other front. But breaking them on purpose just seems silly, if there is no need (read: forward progress) to. If we ever do mirrorbrain or geodns, then we can make the necessary changes at that time rather than doing anything ow when (as far as I'm aware) nothing big is on the horizon, or needs to be. I'd propose leaving these untended mirrors in the list, but *only* if they magically stay up to date and relatively pain-free. If they begin to lag, then mark them as inactive and they will no longer be on the official list. -Dan