(sorry if I broke the threading, not having a mail to reply to here)
The primary mirror has roughly 240GB of which 192GB is
currently in use.
This can be increased but of course none of us want to spend more money
on renting data center disk space than necessary. I don't know how much
disk space is available for TDE on the secondary mirrors.
The question is, aren't most of these 192 GB useless by now?
Looking at what we currently have in our mirror dir, it seems there is a
lot of stuff there that could be gotten rid of. To me it really doesn't
make much sense to keep e.g. the 3.5.12-release from 2010 available on
all mirrors. Or a Maverick-iso from 2010. Other projects, e.g. CentOS,
solve this by only keeping the currently maintained versions on the main
mirror network, and at some point moving the things that are no longer
maintained to an archive site. This has a lot of advantages: That
content usually gets _extremely_ few requests, so it uses up far more
traffic to keep the mirrors updated than the mirrors will ever receive
requests for it. It also reduces the space usage on the mirrors. It
saves everyone space and traffic. And the few requests for archive
content can be handled by a server with very low bandwidth.
I am not personally in direct contact with any of the
other mirrors, even
though they all pull from us. Contact between the mirror admins has AFAIK
always been through Tim.
The primary mirror uses rsync rather than apt-mirror, and I suspect the
same is true for the other mirrors.
We're running one of these mirrors at ftp.fau.de. Both your assumptions
are correct for us.
(From Sláveks mail)
If anyone is interested in synchronizing Preliminary Stable Builds or
Preliminary Testing Builds, just let me know and I can also make them
accessible via rsync
We would gladly mirror this _if_ there is a demand for it, i.e. we don't
spend more traffic syncing the mirror than the mirror will ever see
requests.
As a TDE user myself I would find it convenient but
not critical if
there were fewer differences between PSB and Stable. Ideally they
would be in the same repo pool - like Debian testing and stable.
As a TDE user myself, I would very much support the idea of putting the
PSBs, signed with a proper
trinitydesktop.org and not a personal key,
onto the official mirror network. Rename them into "testing" builds so
it's clear what they are (that name is a lot more self-explaining than
"PSB").
Regards,
--
Michael Meier, FTP-Admin
Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg
Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen
Martensstrasse 1, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
Tel.: +49 9131 85-28973, Fax: +49 9131 302941
rrze-ftp-admins(a)fau.de
blogs.fau.de/ftp/