On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 13:02 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 07:23:05AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:09:54 -0500 > > Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Friday, May 20, 2011 05:07:32 PM Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 20, 2011 04:36:40 PM Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > This is the first release we're doing since moving the master > > > > > mirrors from Red Hat I/T control to our control. > > > > > > > > > > With that, we dropped all the historical mirrors that were using > > > > > download.fedora.redhat.com and were in its rsync ACLs, forcing > > > > > people to use the tiering. > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we have only a few mirrors reporting having the > > > > > content (per the mirrorlists): > > > > > http://mirror.pnl.gov/fedora/linux/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > ftp://mirror.cs.princeton.edu/pub/mirrors/fedora/linux/releases/15/Fedora / > > > > > http://mirror.seas.harvard.edu/fedora/linux/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > http://mirror.hiwaay.net/pub/fedora/linux/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/15/Fedora/ > > > > > > > > > > Should we consider: > > > > > a) force mirrors to change to tiering if they want the bits > > > > > before Day 0. b) opening up the restrictions on dl.fp.o so the > > > > > historical mirrors don't have to make changes (at a cost of > > > > > bandwidth from dl*) c) bitflipping really early (e.g. ~now) > > > We dont need to bitflip, we can just make it so its available via > > > rsync but not via http or ftp > > > > True. > > > > Looks like we are now up to 19 mirrors... so it's going up. > > > > Is that normal for this time before release? I'm not sure. > > > > How many do we normally like to have by release day? > > For F14, we had about 50 mirrors in sync. Right now we have about 25. > > I'd like to propose we unrestrict [fedora-enchilada], which is being > hit by about 64 mirrors right now (all of whom should be using a > tiered mirror, but they are probably still using > download.fedora.redhat.com which points to us now), at least through > the bitflip. We'll want to watch the load on dl0[1-5] and the > bandwidth spike, but it should give us more synced mirrors. > > +1 - but can we resolve back these mirrors and plonk them about it? -sv _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
