On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 06:42:07PM +0100, Christian Rebischke via arch-devops wrote:

1. Can I have a web-directory, where only I have access to?

Depends on the specifics, but generally yes. I'm not quite sure why that is important though if the image is signed.

2. Which key should I use to sign them? A new cloud-image signing key or my personal key? (I think latter should be enough).

Whatever works better.

3. I expect to build them monthly like the ISOs, how many images do you want to keep? My current assumption is that 1 year of image backup of cloud-images (qcow2) only would cost us around 30-50GB.

No idea how many are needed. Why do we need more than 1-3?

4. Do we want to mirror the images?

That's probably the most important question. If they should be mirrored, it might be a good idea to put them in the mirror directory tree alongside the ISOs. Then we'd also have to decide if expanding our mirror tree by 30-50gb is ok or not. Right now, the whole tree (excluding sources) is around 80gb. Florian

Hi everybody, I just wanted to revive this thread and state the current requirements for Arch Linux qcow2 images. The qcow2 images are finally stable enough for the public, therefore I would like to make them available on the same location as the ISO + link to it via our website. The images will be signed by me locally and then uploaded. For this, I've created the following todo list: 1. Build qcow2 image + sign it 2. Get access to a web directory from the devops team 3. Upload it to the web directory 4. Patch the archlinux.org website to link to the image location The image is round about 1.5GB big in size. The only question that still hunts me is: Do we want to mirror this image or not? The image is expected to be updated once per month. So I don't see such a big impact on mirroring. My fear is that, if we don't mirror, we will maybe encounter higher load and traffic on the image serving server. Chris