Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
674
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
''darin:'' I think you're worrying about something that we can easily solve. Fetching the data via redirect is not a problem for this system. The idea here is that we will try to fetch the files in small chunks. We need to worry about all of the firefox's trying to update themselves, but we can be smart to ensure that they are balanced out. The download redirector could even return an error if the load is too high. Then the firefoxes will wait until some timeout before trying again. Are you sure that the mirrors do not support byte range requests? Even very old versions of Apache supports it for static files. Are you concerned about using HTTP instead of FTP? | ''darin:'' I think you're worrying about something that we can easily solve. Fetching the data via redirect is not a problem for this system. The idea here is that we will try to fetch the files in small chunks. We need to worry about all of the firefox's trying to update themselves, but we can be smart to ensure that they are balanced out. The download redirector could even return an error if the load is too high. Then the firefoxes will wait until some timeout before trying again. Are you sure that the mirrors do not support byte range requests? Even very old versions of Apache supports it for static files. Are you concerned about using HTTP instead of FTP? | ||
''justdave:'' Yeah, solvable easily enough. :) Some of the mirrors are actually using non-apache webservers, is the problem. HTTP is very much prefered over FTP though. Whether the server supports byte-ranges ought to be able to be tested for, so we could have Bouncer's sentry script test the servers to make sure they support it (so ones that don't support it get removed from the channel the update service will end up using). [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=292942 Bug 292942] has been filed for this. | |||
---- | ---- | ||