Re: Partial wishlist for mirrors

[jon <scream@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Lewman wrote:
> These are just some thoughts.  I'm sure other projects have solved the
> mirror problem as well, perhaps we could see what they've done.  I'd
> also like to put mirrors into better rotation, rather than have the
> buried 4 links deep into the site, and no one ever uses them.  These are
> also known as fun, minor coding challenges:
>   
On the index page, could add "...also available on these mirrors[link]"


> 1) we only look for the trace file off the website mirror
> (project/trace/www.torproject.org), not /dist.  Some better way to
> randomly check files on torproject.org and mirrors for how different
> they are would be great.
>
>   

I note each page has a last compiled time/date... worthwhile?  Instead
of "Up to date, out of date, and unknown" we can use "Last updated on
[date time]" 
> 2) we don't check any of the binaries in any automated fashion.  Some
> way to even check sha1 hashes of the current packages would be great.
>
> 3) what to do when a mirror has been offline for 30, 60, 90 days?  do we
> simply remove it from the list, contact the owner, both?
>
>   

Offline, as in no reachy, or out of date?
> 4) what to do when sha1 hashes of the binaries don't match?  take it out
> of rotation and contact the owner?
>
>   
I think that would be best.  If the sha1 hashes don't match, it is not
the file it was intended to be.  Thus, no longer a mirror.
> 5) automated status update of the mirrors on website publish would be
> great.  We'll need some "fuzziness" in determining how up to date a
> mirror is at the time of publishing.  I suspect older than 36h can be
> considered out of date.
>
>
>   
Agree

Best,

Jon


-- 
PGP Fingerprint: 8397 9B96 6518 5A90 10CA F3C1 C653 AE86 6F19 ED63
PGP ID 0x6F19ED63