Talk:Mirrors

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

rsync errors in tier2 mirrors

It is possible for arch mirrors to be in an inconsistent state if rsync fails at some point. This is due to mirrors not generating their own package databases but rather copying the one from lower tier mirrors. In these cases, trying to grab a package from these mirrors may result in a 404 error due to incomplete syncing. The method described in Tier 2 requirements does not adequately protect this case.

The following code will re-run rsync if it ever fails to ensure mirrors are properly synced.

RET=1
COUNTER=100
until [[ RET -eq 0 && COUNTER -gt 0 ]]; do
 rsync -rtlH --safe-links --delete-after --progress -h --timeout=600 --contimeout=60 -p \
             --delay-updates --no-motd --bwlimit=4096 \
             --temp-dir="/tmp" \
             --exclude='*.links.tar.gz*' \
             --exclude='/other' \
             --exclude='/sources' \
             --exclude='/iso' \
       'rsync://mirror.pkgbuild.com/packages/' \
       "/srv/repo" &&
       RET=0
       COUNTER=$[COUNTER-1]
done;

Moved sourceforge unofficial mirror

I've moved the old sourceforge page from the heading "Global" to "Sourceforge (old ISOs)" and to the bottom of the page. The heading "Global" at the top of the unofficial mirrors list doesn't seem necessary since there's no "global" mirrors under the heading anyway. Even though the sourceforge entry seems quite useless I've moved it to the bottom of the list just in case someone else decides they need ~10 year old ISOs. —This unsigned comment is by MisterAnderson (talk) 8 December 2015‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Well done, I'm not even sure if we need to list it at all actually, what could be the purpose of using a 10+yo iso for a rolling-release distro? — Kynikos (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Who knows, but if it gets deleted, someone will show up needing it for some strange reason. Wouldn't suprise me, anyway. MisterAnderson (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The stats on the SF page are quite worrisome indeed... Let's see what effect your edit has on the number of downloads there: if it drops noticeably, it means that people were really being sent there from this page thinking to download an up-to-date image, hence the link should be deleted; if the number of downloads doesn't drop, maybe there really are people looking for old iso's... — Kynikos (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)