1:20 p.m.
I was just think that the fedora mirror system could save a little/a lot
of bandwidth if there were copies of the .torrent files found at
http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ in the /iso directories next to the
actual iso files. If these torrents were as convenient to get as the
*.iso maybe more people would use them instead of just saying 'what the
heck' and clicking on the .iso.
Politically it would be a great statement. One of the most significant
open source companies stepping up and using bit torrent for an obviously
legal purpose. But, alas I'm not a lawyers so I have no idea the legal
risks this would present.
-dtf
2 p.m.
david writes:
I was just think that the fedora mirror system could save a little/a
lot
of bandwidth if there were copies of the .torrent files found at
http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ in the /iso directories next to the
actual iso files. If these torrents were as convenient to get as the
*.iso maybe more people would use them instead of just saying 'what the
heck' and clicking on the .iso.
Politically it would be a great statement. One of the most significant
open source companies stepping up and using bit torrent for an obviously
legal purpose. But, alas I'm not a lawyers so I have no idea the legal
risks this would present.
There's absolutely no legal risk in publishing a .torrent of a Fedora iso.
It appears that torrents were set up independently by folks outside of
Fedoraland-proper, and they've been managed this way all this time.
Although is comparatively little cost in publishing torrent content, but I
think that having torrents published by an outside source is better. When a
new release comes out all the mirrors get hammered. It would be nearly
impossible for you to grab the torrent file then.
2:07 p.m.
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
david writes:
> I was just think that the fedora mirror system could save a little/a
> lot of bandwidth if there were copies of the .torrent files found at
> http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ in the /iso directories next to the
> actual iso files. If these torrents were as convenient to get as the
> *.iso maybe more people would use them instead of just saying 'what
> the heck' and clicking on the .iso.
> Politically it would be a great statement. One of the most
> significant open source companies stepping up and using bit torrent
> for an obviously legal purpose. But, alas I'm not a lawyers so I
> have no idea the legal risks this would present.
There's absolutely no legal risk in publishing a .torrent of a Fedora
iso.
It appears that torrents were set up independently by folks outside of
Fedoraland-proper, and they've been managed this way all this time.
The torrent is setup by Seth Vidal, one of the primary developers of
Yum, Fedora Extras management, Fedora Extras build system,
Fedoraproject.org and so on. Sure he doesnt work for Red Hat but it is
pretty much "Fedoraland" .
regards
Rahul
2:15 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 15:00 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
It appears that torrents were set up independently by folks outside
of
Fedoraland-proper, and they've been managed this way all this time.
Although is comparatively little cost in publishing torrent content, but I
think that having torrents published by an outside source is better. When a
new release comes out all the mirrors get hammered. It would be nearly
impossible for you to grab the torrent file then.
The release method could be changed so that the only way to get a new
release via the first couple days is using BitTorrent. This would
probably eliminate the initial load spike that the mirrors get. If a few
of the mirrors can be convinced to seed the torrent, things would be
even nicer.
--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net>
2:54 p.m.
I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
--
Public Key available Here:
http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/pubkey.asc
3:28 p.m.
On 7/5/05, Richard June <rjune(a)bravegnuworld.com> wrote:
I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
Thats very short sighted. Not everyone lives on a network that is
friendly to torrent activity.
I'm pretty sure that some of the official mirrors would much rather
see the users inside their local networks consume from a locally
available mirror than to waste bandwidth across the network boundary
to the outside world pulling from and pushing to torrent peers out in
the wild. What exactly is the point of making life more difficult for
the admins of large networks who are volunteering to mirror fedora and
allow some public access? I very much doubt you would get all the
mirrors to agree to wait. Even if by some miracle all those
'official' mirrors do wait... other people who get the torrent will
open mirrors regardless.
-jef
3:37 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:28 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 7/5/05, Richard June <rjune(a)bravegnuworld.com> wrote:
> I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
> you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
Thats very short sighted. Not everyone lives on a network that is
friendly to torrent activity.
They can wait a week.
I'm pretty sure that some of the official mirrors would much
rather
see the users inside their local networks consume from a locally
available mirror than to waste bandwidth across the network boundary
to the outside world pulling from and pushing to torrent peers out in
the wild.
Those admins can set access controls on their FTP servers.
What exactly is the point of making life more difficult for
the admins of large networks who are volunteering to mirror fedora and
allow some public access? I very much doubt you would get all the
mirrors to agree to wait.
They wait already.
Even if by some miracle all those
'official' mirrors do wait... other people who get the torrent will
open mirrors regardless.
That's OK for them, the purpose of this exercise is to decrease the
stress on official mirrors, not prevent the propagation of Fedora.
--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net>
4:02 p.m.
On 7/5/05, Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:28 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 7/5/05, Richard June <rjune(a)bravegnuworld.com> wrote:
> > I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
> > you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
>
> Thats very short sighted. Not everyone lives on a network that is
> friendly to torrent activity.
They can wait a week.
But the won't wait. Just like the god damn morons who sneak out a
torrent from an unlocked mirrors don't wait. As soon as its in the
wild in any way shape or form.. people are going to mirror it in a way
that works best for them. That means rsync and ftp and http mirrors
will spring up as soon as possible to fill the need. People CAN
CHOOSE to use the torrent right now. People aren't CHOOSING to do
that. If the torrent was clearly the best option for the majority of
the userbase... we wouldn't see the mirrors being hammered on release
day. I think people need to stop trying to force the torrent to be
the one-true distribution technology.
Those admins can set access controls on their FTP servers.
So its not really a staggered release then is it... if mirror admins
can individual choose to wait or not... you haven't really
accomplished much.
They wait already.
That's OK for them, the purpose of this exercise is to decrease
the
stress on official mirrors, not prevent the propagation of Fedora.
Or perhaps, it would just inspire official mirrors from delisting from
the official list in order to be free to open the tree for the segment
of the userbase they are most concerned with serving. How effective is
that torrent seed based in the US ... compared to a mirror in
australia.. if you are living in australia ... on that first day of
release or the second day of the release? Hmmm?
If the purpose of this excercise is to decrease the stress on the
official mirrors.. how about we make sure the official mirrors like
the idea of waiting longer while a torrent opens up. I'm pretty sure
the idea of a staggered release has come up before, and if it were a
concensous among those hosting official mirrors I'm pretty sure the
policy would be in place right now.
-jef
4:11 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 17:02 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 7/5/05, Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:28 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 7/5/05, Richard June <rjune(a)bravegnuworld.com> wrote:
> > > I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
> > > you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
> >
> > Thats very short sighted. Not everyone lives on a network that is
> > friendly to torrent activity.
>
> They can wait a week.
But the won't wait. Just like the god damn morons who sneak out a
torrent from an unlocked mirrors don't wait. As soon as its in the
wild in any way shape or form.. people are going to mirror it in a way
that works best for them. That means rsync and ftp and http mirrors
will spring up as soon as possible to fill the need.
Why is this bad?
People CAN
CHOOSE to use the torrent right now. People aren't CHOOSING to do
that. If the torrent was clearly the best option for the majority of
the userbase... we wouldn't see the mirrors being hammered on release
day. I think people need to stop trying to force the torrent to be
the one-true distribution technology.
Perhaps they aren't using the torrent because they either don't know
about it or they are lazy.
> Those admins can set access controls on their FTP servers.
So its not really a staggered release then is it... if mirror admins
can individual choose to wait or not... you haven't really
accomplished much.
A staggered release to the general public. If the admin at a .edu wants
to allow their institution access to their local mirror in order to cut
down on external bandwidth, there's no reason to stop them from doing so
after the official general BitTorrent release.
> That's OK for them, the purpose of this exercise is to
decrease the
> stress on official mirrors, not prevent the propagation of Fedora.
Or perhaps, it would just inspire official mirrors from delisting from
the official list in order to be free to open the tree for the segment
of the userbase they are most concerned with serving. How effective is
that torrent seed based in the US ... compared to a mirror in
australia.. if you are living in australia ... on that first day of
release or the second day of the release? Hmmm?
.au allowing access to .au isn't much different from a .edu allowing
internal access.
--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net>
4:26 p.m.
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 7/5/05, Nicholas Miell <nmiell(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 16:28 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
>>On 7/5/05, Richard June <rjune(a)bravegnuworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I gotta say, I *LIKE* that plan.
>>>you want fedora for the first few days, great. get the torrent.
>>
>>Thats very short sighted. Not everyone lives on a network that is
>>friendly to torrent activity.
>
>They can wait a week.
But the won't wait. Just like the god damn morons who sneak out a
torrent from an unlocked mirrors don't wait. As soon as its in the
wild in any way shape or form.. people are going to mirror it in a way
that works best for them. That means rsync and ftp and http mirrors
will spring up as soon as possible to fill the need.
If people set up their own mirrors it's their bandwidth, their problem.
Why do we care?
--
Brian Gerst
6874
days inactive
6874
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Brian Gerst -
David T Farning -
Jef Spaleta -
Nicholas Miell -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard June -
Sam Varshavchik