Presto logging

[Tony Nelson]

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 at georgeanelson.com>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>