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

[Matthew Gyurgyik]

  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 at 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.