Michael, > On Apr 6, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > At 01:31 PM 4/3/2015, IETF Administrative Director wrote: >> All; >> >> The use of FTP to retrieve files from the IETF servers has been >> declining steadily. > > > Hi Ray - > > What is the cost of leaving FTP service in place? I would expect that the cost was more in setting up FTP in the first place (e.g. adding it to template emails, configuring the servers) than any real day to day cost, but I could be wrong. > > What is the cost of removing it? (e.g. besides simply shutting off the servers, what else has to be done, who has to do it and what will it cost?). > > Is there an impact on the IETF budget either way short term? Long term? > > Thanks - Mike There is no cost to turning it off. There is an incremental savings in maintenance and support burden, and complexity. The FTP server we are using (proftpd) places restrictions on how we store files in the file sytem that are much more constraining than the http and rsync daemons. Essentially, the files to be served must be stored in a single tree (as hardlinks - symlinks won't work). This is impeding work as we evolve. In particular, it affects how we separate services to take advantage of cloud architectures. Other servers have different limits, but still place significant constraints on what we can do. Since the information is already available through other mechanisms (particularly rsync), the folks studying the problem recommended discontinuing the service, rather than investing in finding the least onerous deamon and reconfiguring to it. Ray > > > >> The files made available with that protocol are also available using >> http and rsync. (See the modules exposed at rsync.ietf.org using >> "rsync rsync.ietf.org::") >> >> The majority of the current FTP traffic appears to be from mirror >> sites that would be better served using rsync. >> >> Input received by 20 April will inform the decision. >> >> Thanks >> >> Ray > >