Kernel.org Needs Some Help, Perl Foundation Got Some

Dante wrote in to say "I just read this on the Linux Kernel mailing list, it's from Peter Anvin, one of the ftp.kernel.org maintainers... H. Peter Anvin writes: "The recent troubles we've had at kernel.org pretty much highlight the issues with having an offsite system with no easy physical access. This begs the question if we could establish another primary kernel.org site; this would not only reduce the load on any one site but deal with any one failure in a much more graceful way.

Anyone have any ideas of some organization who would be willing to host a second kernel.org server? Such an organization should expect around 25 Mbit/s sustained traffic, and up to 40-100 Mbit/s peak traffic (this one can be adjusted to fit the available resources.) If so, please contact me."

In related news, mbadolato wrote in to tell us that "there's a press release over at dyndns.org announcing that they've donated $20,000 to the Perl Foundation!

'Thanks primarily to Perl and other Open Source technologies, we are able to provide DNS services to over 180,000 members of the Internet community,' said Tim Wilde, founder and chief executive officer of DynDNS.org. 'This is our way of giving back to some of the people whose tireless devotion to writing quality software has enabled us to provide our services to the Internet community over the past three years.'

The donation page for the Perl Foundation can be found here

Comments

The real problem

[AirLace]

The real problem is not lack of bandwidth. There's plenty of it to go around. What saddens me is that the ISC is throwing away most of $80,000 annually because people can't be bothered to patch their kernel, and instead rely on downloading the full 20MB tarball every time a new kernel is released.

The solution to the problem is really quite simple. As Larry McVoy, who maintains the powerful but non-free BitKeeper RCS system and knows a thing or two about patches, has hinted towards kernel.org may be better off not providing a tarball for each release, instead providing some kind of utility that downloads the latest available full kernel, but only if necessary, plus patches. I'd be all for it. In the meantime, there are a number of incremental patching systems for the Linux kernel that automatically download patches, verify their signatures and patch the kernel which may be worth looking into to save time, bandwidth and resources:

• dlkern
• buildkernel
• lkpatch, which has fallen into disrepair
  

Of course, it goes without saying that everyone should still use their local mirror, particularly as kernel.org will only be accessible to mirrors for the forseeable future.

Re:The real problem

[GrafZahl]

IMHO your last sentence is the key to the solution. Other projects use a system whereby they don't allow direct ftp / http download access. This should be purely for mirror sites.

It would also help, if /. would not put direct links to kernel.org but would instead provide or link to a list of mirrors.

BTW, the following message I just got back from www dot kernel dot org:

The Linux Kernel Archives is currently offline due to a hardware failure. However, mirror sites are receiving updates; please use a mirror site instead.

May be this is the beginning of the end to direct access to them?!

Regards,
REB

Re:The real problem

[kinnunen]

There should be a 'make update' that atomatically retrieves (from the nearest mirror) the patch, uncompresses it and performs the patching. I can't imagine it would be too hard to code and the ease of use should convince even the "I have a 100M pipe so I don't bother with patches"-people to use it.

Re:The real problem

[Quixote]

ISC is throwing away most of $80,000 annually because people can't be bothered to patch their kernel, and instead rely on downloading the full 20MB tarball every time a new kernel is released.

Another thing: when I download the kernel (as an end-user), why should I have to download Sparc, MIPS, IA64, PPC, etc. sources when all I need is x86? Maybe the kernel sources can be broken apart into individual architectures for the end users (obviously not for the kernel hackers).
Just did a quick check on my 2.4.17-xfs. The "arch" directory, compressed, takes 5.1MB. But the i386 subdirectory takes just 400KB (all figures with tar | gzip -9). I see a potential savings of 4.5MB right here.

Re:The real problem

[nehril]

or they could provide patches only for the first few days after a release (forcing the rabid hordes to learn how to patch if they want the goods NOW) and then, at a random later time, post the full tarball. this might cause some percentage of ppl to get into the habit of patching, which should make a significant dent in their bandwidth needs.

Hmm, I wonder who could help?

[mollusk]

If only there were some organization out there with a vested interest in linux. One that owes its existence to linux. Preferably one with a history of involvement in the linux community. Maybe even some corporation that runs it own websites dealing with open source issues. And while we're wishing, maybe even some entity with experience dealing with massive traffic requirements similar to the dreaded 'slashdot effect.'

Nah, nothing comes to mind. Shame.