From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4781 invoked by uid 1002); 23 Jul 2003 20:39:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2194 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2003 20:39:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:39:29 +0300 (IDT) From: Tal Peer X-X-Sender: coredumb@err To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030723194823.GJ9959@mail.lieber.org> Message-ID: References: <20030723194823.GJ9959@mail.lieber.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The release of 1.4 and its impact on our mirrors X-Archives-Salt: 4bb956cd-62ff-4536-b2ae-8d9c0479935c X-Archives-Hash: 297a0b4bcf7078a463f7c7890d7264b2 On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kurt Lieber wrote: > We have already received numerous complaints from our mirror admins about > the amount of disk space we chew up now. For reference, here is a break > down: > > 9.7G ./releases > 139M ./snapshots > 17G ./distfiles > 6.6G ./experimental > > [real-big-snip] > > Thoughts? Ideas? > Looking at the numbers you provided, i think we should seperate the mirrors into two groups: Binary and Source. Binary mirrors would provide GRPs and ISOs, and source mirrors will only provide distfiles. Mirrors could provide both, of course. In the short term, there won't be too many binary mirrors (freeing almost 17 gigs of free space is tempting), so we should encourage mirrors that are high on diskspace to mirror both source and binary. In the long term, this could also rise the numbers of mirrors, as mirror provideres will need to 'waste' less disk space on the gentoo mirror (if they choose to only mirror one type, that is). -- Tal Peer Gentoo Developer Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x253D2947 Key Fingerprint: C0B1 D91D 7323 6C0F 227A CBD6 D635 E53D 253D 2947 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list