[arch-general] 'Local mirror' page was removed from wiki

[Nathan Wayde]

On 14/09/10 19:45, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Fess<killall_humans at 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.