At 3:21 PM +0200 3/26/07, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: >Jonathan Dieter wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 08:52 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: >>> On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 11:26 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote: >>>> Also, our test server is syncing updates and extras every six hours. >>>> Does anyone know if there's a way for the fedoraproject servers to push >>>> updates rather than our polling? >>> There's not >>> >>> Jeremy >>> >> Bummer. I guess we get to work with what we've got then. Is six hours >> a good mirror timetable? >> >> Jonathan >> > >This brings up (again) the discussion of whether if would be worth >adding sync-flag semantics to the way we mirror (like what debian has >been doing for years). That would allow downstream mirrors to monitor >for a specific file every hour or so, and when that file exists with an >updated timestamp (or something) then we can be sure that the mirror has >finished it's own sync. The downstream mirror can then (more) reliably >perform it's own sync, sleep for some hours and start all over again. So >while we're still polling for updates, the risk of ending with an >inconsistent mirror is reduced. If the repomd.xml file were guaranteed to be updated last, then it would make a good sentinal. (Actually, all the metadata files should be updated at the same time. Aas they have static names there can't be two versions at a time.) >If this was implemented on all mirrors, we could effectively and very >simply decrease mirroring bandwidth, improve mirror reliability/quality, >reduce the number of update problems due to incomplete mirroring etc etc. > >By now it should not be a big surprise, that I think this could be a >good idea. I'll just keep pointing out situations where this could make >a positive difference. ;-) -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
