up2date, mirror repositories, and performance

[Martin Alderson]

On 18 Feb 2004, at 22:37, seth vidal wrote:

>
>> Ok, it would mean running bittorrent alongside thttp. Not a huge drain
>> of resources.
>
> What are you talking about? I run a mirror AND I run the torrent 
> tracker
> for fedora releases. Guess what - the tracker and the seed eat an
> enormous amount of the total cpu time on that machine.
>
> Much higher than just apache or thttpd.

No, there would be a dedicated tracker. There is no reason why they 
couldn't be dedicated seeds as well (as opposed to leapfrogging of 
current mirror). It would just depend on the scale and size of the 
BitTorrent network apart from FTP and HTTP updates.

>
>> Sorry but if it means 20MB that the mirrors don't have to provide (IE:
>> from users upstream connections) it is a huge success IMO.
>
> The mirrors are still going to take a primary hit as the seeds - and
> fast seeds at that.
>
> -sv
>
>
>
> -- 
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>
>
Martin Alderson,
IntechHosting

Email: martin at intechhosting.co.uk
Web: http://www.intechhosting.co.uk