RCs for Everyone (was One (more) week slip of Fedora 11 Release)
Michael Cronenworth
mike at cchtml.com
Mon Jun 1 17:56:26 UTC 2009
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth <mike at cchtml.com> said:
>> Sounds like the mirrors should use bitorrent? (then why not just let
>> users use bittorrent) This will be my last random thought today.
>
> Bittorrent is not some magic wand. The problem is just the volume of
> bits that would have to be pushed out in a short period of time to be
> useful. To generate 25G+ of data and try to distribute it in a timely
> fashion, Red Hat would have to dedicate large amounts of bandwidth for
> just that purpose. The bits would have to get from the point the ISOs
> are generated to the public servers to at least some consumers (be they
> mirrors or end-users).
The initial ISO mirror wouldn't be burdened with 100 mirrors connecting
to it. Each of those 100 mirrors would share the load. Yes, it's not a
magical solution, but it's better than HTTP/rsync. ..or am I mistaken?
Is bittorrent worse in your eyes?
>
> Let's say you wanted to get 25G out (at least to the initial point of
> distribution) in 4 hours. That's an average line rate of about 14
> megabits per second to distribute them to _one_ other site. If you have
> just 10 other sites trying to get them simultaneously, you'll need a
> full OC-3 or a fractional gigabit ethernet link.
>
> Also, mirrors aren't going to use Bittorrent to fetch bits because AFAIK
> the automation is not available. I have scripts wrapped around rsync to
> keep things in sync (and even that still needs some "hand holding" now
> and then).
>
I realize that. It would be an interesting project to take up if I had
the time. "Automated mass data dispersement"
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list