On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:47 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:12:45PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 23:46 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >>The basic selection algorithm for choosing
> >>the order in which to return mirrors to clients remains the same:
> >>prefer same netblocks, internet2 in same country if on internet2, same
> >>country, same continent, then global, in that order.
> >
> >That's totally logical, but it's wrong for some cases. Here in
Venezuela
> >there is much better bandwidth to the US than to anywhere else in South
> >America, so the "same continent" rule is not going to work for us. I
> >suspect the same is true for some other SA countries.
Understood. But I don't have a way to know that.
Of course. What's needed is a way to tune these things manually.
> The same is also true for Asia. I would hope that the
"same continent"
> rule has a tad bit more smarts in it.
Note, "same continent" is the 4th major sorting rule; if there are
mirrors in the same country, they will be preferred. We've got about
150 public mirrors right now, and are always looking for more.
I don't know of any in Venezuela at the moment. Furthermore, it's not
even clear that a local mirror would be faster for everyone in the
country.
I don't have a way to know the whole global routing table to
know
which mirrors might be closer to individuals than others. So I'm
making what I think are pretty good guesses, and I don't get _too
many_ complaints about Fedora mirror performance. Except this one -
that slow mirrors were being overloaded, which last night's change
addresses.
I'm open to better solutions, preferably in patch form. :-)
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/mirrormanager has the open source code
for the whole system.
My only suggestion for now is that the weighting of the various classes
be changeable via a config file. I don't know if that is easy or hard to
do given the existing code.
> >Also, for the relatively few people on Internet2 it's
always better than
> >Internet1, at least here. I mean Internet2 to anywhere is better than
> >Internet1 to the same city.
That all depends on the interconnects between the nodes on Internet2
and the commerical internet. As those links cost real money for our
volunteer mirror admins, by request of some of the I2 mirrors in our
system, I've tried to avoid sending non-Internet2 users to Internet2
servers.
That's fine. I'm talking about I2<->I2 connections, which if available
should outweigh non I2<->I2 connections even if the latter are more
local.
poc