W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > March to April 2003

Re: comments? mirrors.txt

From: Justin Chapweske <justin@chapweske.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:57:47 -0600
Message-ID: <3E8C680B.1090605@chapweske.com>
To: Andre John Mas <ajmas@newtradetech.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, www-talk@w3.org

Andre, I think the idea of identifying semi-persistent mirrors is a nice 
concept, but will quickly become obsolete as automatic mirror selection 
technologies are adopted.

For instance, a simple algorithm that pings a set of mirrors and chooses 
the one with the lowest ping time can be very effective and super-simple 
to implement.  Users shouldn't care where they are downloading from, 
just that they are getting fast downloads.

Likewise, the Open Content Network (http://open-content.net/) can 
download content from multiple mirrors in parallel, making the issue of 
selecting a single mirror an even more moot point.

I remember using Napster back in the day and having it display the 
individual hosts from which files were being downloaded and thinking 
that it was incredibly stupid to have the user choose the peer.  Sure 
enough, modern P2P systems now abstract away the underlying peers and 
simply work on the user's behalf to provide the fastest possible download.

Personally, I think the days of manual mirror identification and 
selection are numbered.

> You walk into a service office, where turn over is high, you just want 
> the service and don't care much about the identity of the person serving
> you as you know they won't be there next time. On the other hand you
> walk into another service office where almost every employee has been
> there for more than four years. You get used to a certain quality of
> service and you want to be able to recognise the person that is always
> serving you and you use them all the time because you are happy with
> what the service they provide.

Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:57:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:04 UTC