(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only keeping the currently maintained versions on the main mirror network, and at some point moving the things that are no longer maintained to an archive site.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@... blogs.fau.de/ftp/