No. of download per architecture for ftp.hk.debian.org
2005, 三月 5 - 04:49 — anthony
(ignoring requests from Googlebot)
(ignoring requests from Googlebot)
(ignoring requests from Googlebot)
After reading Tollef Fog Heen's blog, I tried to do a similar statistics on ftp.hk.debian.org from Dec 2004 to Feb 2005. Results are as follows (only include successful requests, that is HTTP 200 responses). Hmm, I think some archs can be cut to save some disk space...
Dec 2004
| 192207 | i386 |
| 64539 | all |
| 6264 | powerpc |
| 352 | sparc |
| 174 | hppa |
| 142 | arm |
| 112 | mipsel |
| 21 | alpha |
| 9 | mips |
| 8 | m68k |
| 4 | s390 |
| 3 | ia64 |
| 192195 | i386 |
| 64486 | all |
| 6255 | powerpc |
| 339 | sparc |
| 167 | hppa |
| 133 | arm |
| 104 | mipsel |
| 12 | alpha |
Jan 2005
| 221980 | i386 |
| 70907 | all |
| 2072 | powerpc |
| 1044 | alpha |
| 611 | mipsel |
| 456 | sparc |
| 298 | hppa |
| 272 | m68k |
| 252 | mips |
| 250 | s390 |
| 238 | ia64 |
| 214 | arm |
| 221751 | i386 |
| 70753 | all |
| 1807 | powerpc |
| 812 | alpha |
| 398 | mipsel |
| 205 | sparc |
| 45 | hppa |
| 1 | ia64 |
Feb 2005
| 177502 | i386 |
| 63081 | all |
| 3431 | powerpc |
| 214 | sparc |
| 174 | mipsel |
| 102 | alpha |
| 40 | m68k |
| 38 | mips |
| 33 | hppa |
| 28 | ia64 |
| 26 | s390 |
| 18 | arm |
| 177470 | i386 |
| 63035 | all |
| 3400 | powerpc |
| 188 | sparc |
| 148 | mipsel |
| 71 | alpha |
| 1 | m68k |
© 2004-2009 Debian HK - About Debian HK
Debian and the Debian logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc
Debian and the Debian logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc
回應
Cutting arches may be a good idea
But doesn't being a ftp.XX.debian.org require mirroring the whole thing?
- Ming
Yes you're right. We faced th
Yes you're right. We faced the problem of lack of disk space before, so when disk space runs out once again, we can only choose to cut the archs that very few people use.
I think the point is to add h
I think the point is to add harddisk rather then cut architecture. I suppose we have the responsibility to provide all architecture that debian provide. Of course, We really need some donation to support the sites.
Keep the Debian packages mirrors is important for HK users.
Are you saiding to cut the Debian packages mirrors ?
Debian HK is the only updated mirror site for Debian packages.
If you cut the Debian packages mirrors , than it will be greatly disappionting the Debain promotion in HK users.
Today, the ATA HD cost is cheap, a few hundred for a 160 G ATA HD.
However , if the data growth very quickly in the server, you will need to study the reason and find out the root causes.
Here are some points to help you on this :
1. How many space will need to provide Debian mirror packages ?
It should not be more than 100G , I guest. Add an additional HD to hold all Debian mirror packages.
2. Are the server used for other purpose/application which ate up the space ? (i.e. News group, Blog , Email ...etc).
Find out which one cause the growth of the data, than spread it out to other server if you can.
To find out and forecast the data growth rate by application is the key to help for right sizing your server.
I really do not want to see any Debian Package tree being cut. Cut others not the Debian Package mirror.
Hope this may help
K. M. Lau
Ho, don't worry!
Ho, don't worry! Anthony only mean to cut some non-popular archs like s390, MIPS and Motorola 68000. I suppose you wouldn't have those kind of machines. But I didn't agree much for that. I start the mirror sites over 5 years ago coz I want to fully support Debian and aimed to support as much packages as Debian provide. To support such a dream, I had already paid over 70k for the hosting fee in these 5 years.
Be honest, I had feel a bit hurt when people didn't care about others and try their best to take away the bandwidth of our server. And support the server running is not an easy task while we can only spent our leisure time to maintain and fix it when there is any problem. I could said the most important problem we suffer is not the money but time to insert/repair HDs to the servers.
While I got some economic problem recently, I can't support this now. Thanks, dom that he provide a pretty low hosting fee to us and make our services can still continues. And Anthony is try to raising some fund from Official Debian to support the sites.
I can say that we will continue the mirror services for years but time is still the main problem of us. While Anthony is stay in BJ, most administration work is done by me. (Thanks Geoffrey for help some time)
What kind of server you are using ?
What kind of server you are using ?
Is it with raid 5 and hot plug Hard Drive ?
Band named Or just a clone PC . ( To save cost, it should be clone I guess .)
Does it has a tape back up ? (Use usb2.0 HD as a back up would be a good idea to save the tape and tape drive cost.)
How long will it take to recover the server when it is down ?
It may be the time to consider to re-plan the server design to save the future expansion cost .
K. M. Lau
O_o
Ummm? Do you really think we got money to do backup? Don't kidding!? The hosting fee already cost me much in past fee years. Pls understand the fee is paid by only me voluntarily and the server is hosting one a real Data Center but not people's home. And a full debian mirror (even w/o CD images) spent over hundred GBs. (ok, it is not expensive for current IDE. But how about using RAID and with tape backup!?) And do you think we got the time to goto data center every weeks to do the backup?
P.S. I would like to clarify that we DO have regular backup on database and important to another servers.
Actually I agree with voidoo to have a full Debian mirror. Not just to oblige to Debian's requirements, but because of it is the "right thing" to do. I was just wondering is it worth to provide the archs that so few people use.