On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:31:33PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote: > Christian Perrier wrote:
> | Same rationale for mirror host. As long as we check that default hosts
> | for each country are rock solid mirrors, I see no real interest in
> | keeping this question at high priority.
> |
> | Does someone object to this?
> If this means what I think it does, then yes :-) Here in Australia,
> most broadband connections are byte-charged when you go above some
> quota. One of the Australian Debian mirrors (ftp.wa.au.debian.org)
> counts as local, free traffic while the other (ftp.au.debian.org) would
> count towards my quota. I suspect that people in other countries may be
> in similar positions. Likewise, some people will have a much faster
> connection to the Debian mirror on their LAN, or provided by their Uni,
> or whatever, and want to use that instead of ${country}.debian.org.
> I believe that not prompting for mirror hostname on the default priority
> would be a mistake.
While I don't think there are many places that have the same issue as
Australia, I also object because I live in a country large enough that
the choice of mirror can mean a significant speed difference for the
numerous net installs I do. There are several mirrors that are for all
intents and purposes at the other end of my employer's T-3 circuit,
which I can use to good advantage; in contrast, ftp.us.debian.org would
probably never have more than a 1 in 5 chance of pointing at a server
this fast for me (and in practice, today it's 0 in 5).
If apt-spy were integrated to allow autodetecting of fast mirrors then
I think this could be made a medium prio question, but not before then.
I know I consider mirror selection much more important than any of the
other questions asked at medium prio.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
