Re: FTP server disk allocation

[Steven Pritchard <steve@silug.org>]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:30:30AM -0600, Mike808 wrote:
> Steven Pritchard wrote ..
> >   129G    ftp.debian.org
> 
> Is that really accurate? Wow.
> 
> What is that? stable, testing, and unstable? Or is that prior releases too?

That's pretty much whatever is on ftp.debian.org, minus some of the
obscure architectures.  (That doesn't include any of the CD images,
which honestly I wish I had space for.)

> My point is that does anyone really need Buzz/Rex/Bo/Hamm for MIPS? In
> Hangul or Lithuanian? (no offense meant). More specifically, does
> anyone in the LUCI/SILUG/ArchLUG (Saint Louis/midwest) region care
> enough about these for Steve to allocate the limited/valuable disk
> space resources that KSPEI has to them?

The layout of the Debian archive doesn't lend itself to pruning.  I've
excluded the *really* obscure architectures (ia64, s390, hurd (not an
architecture, but nobody cares about it)).  I either have or know
someone who has every other architecture, so I hate to drop any of
them.

> Or take a vote. I'd love to see Xandros/Kubuntu/Ubuntu mirrors, and
> wouldn't mind giving up a big chunk of that 129GB of Debian mirroring
> to get it.

I'd love to pick up Ubuntu at least since it seems to be getting
popular, and I'm not morally opposed to it.  ;-)

> Is there a way to "virtualize" the mirror via redirects to sections of
> the repository not carried locally? i.e. for the 390, 68k, ia64, and
> pa-risc ports, or the proposed-updates for example. Thus freeing up
> space for other things.

Not that I'm aware of.

The real answer, which I've been avoiding for quite some time, is that
I need more disk space.  Dropping Mandrake puts the issue off for a
while, but it is inevitable.

FWIW, I've mentioned this to a few people, but I've never said it
here...  My current plan is to replace the big SCSI array and the 1U
that drives it with a single small system with a pair of striped 500GB
drives (assuming I can wait long enough for those to get cheaper,
otherwise it might have to be 400GB drives).  I'm going to build two
identical systems, one for the house, and one for the store, with the
one at the store mirroring everything from the one at the house.  Then
I can have everything on the site available for easy
burning/downloading from the LAN at the store.  If one box fails, I
can just fix it and, if necessary, re-sync from the other box.

This also has the nice side bonus of significantly reducing our power
requirements at the house...

Steve
-- 
steve@silug.org           | Southern Illinois Linux Users Group
(618)398-3000             | See web site for meeting details.
Steven Pritchard          | http://www.silug.org/

-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@luci.org with
"unsubscribe luci-discuss" in the body.