On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 14:28:13 -0700 Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The amount of storage and bandwidth able to be saved can be > illustrated by a simple comparison between the efficiency of chopping > up a 3.4GB iso9660 file system arbitrarily (by a static chunk size) > and the same file system based on contents (file by file.) For a > BitTorrent, Fedora's current choice for sharing Spins, the hosted > data is only valid for a given chunk on a single ISO. This data's > footprint (equal to the combined chunk sizes of the entire torrent) > can be used for nothing but this Spin. To be able to host 5 Spins > composed from similar trees via BitTorrent, we now have a footprint > of 17GB, not to mention "seeders" have to run BitTorrent software to > be able to contribute to the swarm. Alternatively, Jigdo can be used > to reduce the footprint of these 5 Spins to about 4GB. The amount of > additional data needing to be hosted for each Spin, in addition to > what data is already pushed to the mirrors, is about 150MB per ISO > with anaconda and about 200KB for ISOs without the installer bits. To > help illustrate the efficiency of using Jigdo vs BitTorrent, the > footprint for 250 Spins is 850GB for BitTorrent and about 40GB for > Jigdo. Additionally, a reduction in overhead can be achieved by > removing the need for the BitTorrent tracker and all related network > traffic without requiring any additional work on the part of mirror > administrators. Question. Spins.fp.o is mostly about Live images no? Live images are essentially a big squasfs image wrapped up in an iso with some bootable stuff involved? How would jigdo possibly help here? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
