On Jan 29, 2014 11:24 PM, "Adam Williamson" <awill...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 18:17 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > 1) Disk space. Disks are not cheap in the world of data-access ready > > disks. The 4 TB SATAs sound nice but when you try serving FTP off them > > you find that you have to raid more than you did of the expensive SAS > > disks and your effective amount of disk space you can use is in the > > range of 1-10% of the disk space before you end up losing to speed of > > access, time to send, and general disk drive latency. After that you > > have to replace the disks quite often as they fail much sooner than > > any manufacturer says they will. > > > > > > 2) Our disk space goal for mirrors is 1 TB of disk space for the main > > releases. That means N-1, N, and N+1 (alpha/beta/release). We skim > > that and every iso, architecture, and extra makes it harder to keep. > > > > > > 3) Net access. Large file sharing (500+ MB iso) costs more than small > > file sharing (rpms). It takes up 'streams' for longer in modern > > routers/firewalls and thus you can fill up your pipe without > > saturating your pipe. This used to be gotten around via various file > > sharing mechanisms but these are increasingly getting shut down at the > > ISP and Universities for any content. > > > > > > 4) Many mirrors skip the spins. That means the cost gets eaten up by > > those that do and then they run into the top issues above which makes > > it more likely they don't want to mirror them. > > > > > > These are costs that all the mirrors have to pay on this and those are > > things that are 'hidden' when people think 'oh we can make another > > spin, it only takes me an hour to spin it up and test it.' > > > > > > By the way, I am not anti-spin and consider the above costs to be > > things that can't be paid now or in the future.. I am just wanting > > people to realize that even beyond releng/qa resources this is not a > > 'freebie'. > > Of course, another way of looking at this is to see that all these > things are the work we would be downloading onto several disparate > groups, who would almost certainly not be capable of doing it as well > and efficiently as Fedora releng is, if we decided to wash our hands of > spins. > > jwb has tried to characterize this as an 'opportunity' for spins, but I > really don't think that washes. It's much more a case of us dumping a > whole lot of extra work onto any who wants to maintain a spin: > > * Get a domain > * Get a proper SSL cert for your domain > * Figure out a build process - hack up some scripts which inevitably > grow into a baroque horror? Deploy your own koji? > * Figure out a QA process (we have provided a QA process for spins; this > cost us - well, me, personally - a few hours I was happy to spend > several releases ago, and it's in place and it works) > * Cover the costs of hosting, or convince someone to distribute your > bits > * Do all your own marketing > * Somehow try to make sure that tools like liveusb-creator include your > bits > > I'm not sure I can imagine a spin maintainer who would be *happy* about > all this.
Your other reply said there is no burden for spins. Yet you list a bunch of things you classify as a whole lot of extra work. Including QA. Using lack of burden as a reason to keep it and extra burden as an excuse not to have spin maintainers do the spins outside of Fedora doesn't wash either. josh
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
