[Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote:

>On Thursday 06 November 2003 22:51, Martin Kunz wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and
>> storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror?
>>
>> Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a
>> lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the
>> older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can!
>
>Not much initially.  Probably outbound speeds of a T1 or better, capable 
>of handling or throttling so that the usage doesn't swamp your normal 
>services.  Storage in the 5gigs area (very soft number, It may take us 
>QUITE a while to hit 5gigs of updates).
>

I would disagree strongly with that statement. As you add more OS's to 
the legacy project and try to port fixes to each of those, you will find 
that the size actually shoots up quite a bit.

Worst case of shooting up diskspace is where you go to the latest 
product versus backporting a patch. In most cases the latest product is 
going to need a lot of supplemental packages also brought in because it 
uses XYZ-3.so versus the XYZ-2.so that the older package used. Sometimes 
it will also need something that was never included in the base product 
of Red Hat.

>Perhaps some people who run mirrors for Red Hat currently can speak to 
>the usage they see for just updates.

The updates are usually the hardest hit of the diskdrives of a mirror. 
The data changes over time and as time goes on its access usually grows 
higher than the downloads of the main OS (IE more 7.3 updates are 
checked than 7.3 downloads.) 

-- 
Stephen John Smoogen            smoogen at lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Labrador  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 5-8058
Ta-03 SM-261  MailStop P208 DP 17U  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka --