[ubuntu-uk] Remote Repos

Sat Jul 28 08:35:04 BST 2007

whoa hang on, let me see if I got this right

client has multiple ubuntu machines to update
each machine updates seperately over internet and kills bw bill
suggestion: is there a better way?

Wouldnt it be easier for there to be a gateway which downloads a repo
if requested and then just caches it?

Regards,

On 27/07/07, Ian Pascoe <softy.lofty.ilp at btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've been trying to put some flesh around Alan's idea, not that easy with
> three daughters constantly after your attention but here goes anyway.
>
> The web side of the house is fairly run of the mill stuff, so that's been
> pushed to one side.  Only thought is to keep any interfaces clean and
> simple.
>
> Next, why would anyone want it?  I think the main areas would be:
>
> * Unable to get access  regularly to a high speed Internet connection
> * unable to get access outside of an Intranet
> * no Internet connection at all
>
> Additionally, there is also the small business, or school, that don't want
> their bandwidth gobbled up by machines on the network each individually
> updating themselves.  I understand that in an ideal world the network would
> be configured so that the updates are downloaded once and broadcasted to
> each machine on the network as it connects, but this only really happens in
> medium to large organisations, and those smaller ones that have SysAdmins
> who can think outside the box (in my experience that is).
>
> As for the HDDs themselves, 40 or maybe 50 Gb, and ideally a compact design
> with a chip set that we know functions well with Ubuntu / Linux.  From this
> you'll realise I'm looking at each HDD having one architect for one release
> cycle on it.  My only question is whether a USB v2.0 or v1.1 or mixture;
> probably v2 only for availability reasons and data transfer speeds.
>
> Next is the physical side of things.  As Alan says you need a central server
> with about 400 - 500 Gb on it with the ability to handle updating at least 2
> HDDs at a time.  I don't think more is needed as the uptake in the UK would
> be fairly minimal but at least the service is there.  The ideal locations
> would be in developing countries.  So the question here is whether to look
> at sending items from the UK, getting local offices set up through the local
> or nearby Loco teams, or just limit ourselves to the UK and Eire.
>
> Next is the physical location of the business.  Well that actually doesn't
> matter that much; in fact it could be quite easily run out of the proverbial
> spare bedroom.
>
> This of course also leads onto the question of how you actually ship them
> out to the client and get them back again.  I realise that the HDDs are
> designed to be portable but you still would probably need to have some
> specialised packing to protect them whilst in transit that could be reused
> to send it back to the "spare bedroom".
>
> Lastly, is how do we let people know that the service exists?  Ideally, it'd
> be from the official Ubuntu sites, and also from those sites linked to
> Ubuntu and Linux.
>
> So that's my thoughts on the actual project, but what about the competition?
> As Alan said there are people already out there who are doing this using
> optical media.  This is fine and a relatively cheap approach, as it only
> costs the price of a couple of DVDs and the P & P; no worries about returns
> or missing / broken HDDs.  However, extrapolating the new legislation
> surrounding recycling electrical items, I wonder how long it will be before
> one off hit DVD / CDs will have to be green as well.
>
> Other questions which spring to mind are:
>
> * client gets their HDD, how do they pursuade apte-get or whichever to use
> that repo?
> * finances
> * licencing
> * sole tradeing or LLP for the business
> * binaries / source code or both
> * full time operation or hobby status?
>
> I think that this kind of goes hand in glove with the Marketing threads.
>
> What we really need is some well known brand to go Ubuntu and jump on the
> back of that publicity.  Or indeed, decide as a community what area we're
> going to tackle first and get cracking there instead of aiming at the
> elusive general public.
>
> E
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
> [mailto:ubuntu-uk-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com]On Behalf Of Alan Pope
> Sent: 26 July 2007 14:36
> To: British Ubuntu Talk
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-uk] ubuntu-uk Digest, Vol 27, Issue 47
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:16:37PM +0100, Pete Stean wrote:
> > Hmm, that hard disc idea sounds good in principal, but then you've got
> > someone who is in the position of suddenly having to worry about DOA
> > products etc etc - a complete headache waiting to happen :\
> > Not that I'm nay-saying or anything, but in reality it sounds a bit like
> > hard work to me
> >
>
> Indeed it does :)
>
> There are already people who sell a copies of the repo on DVD/CD, but I
> don't know how popular those products are.
>
> Hard disks would be potentially harder work in some ways, but easier in
> others. It's very easy to have a cron job that regularly runs apt-mirror to
> keep the "master" copy up to date, and just rsync the master over to a new
> disk as/when it is needed to replenish stock or update it prior to sale.
>
> Dealing with multiple optical media for each customer also has ups and
> downs. If you were to take a copy of the binary packages only then it would
> fit on 3 dual layer DVDs, or 5 single layer ones. If you went for the whole
> repo (for one release) - including source packages as well as binary, then
> it would fit on 5 dual layer DVDs, or 9 single layer ones. These assume
> capacities of 7.7GiB for a DL and 4GiB for a SL.
>
> The above figures were thrown together based on a full repo size of
> 35GiB (for one architecture, one release - e.g. Feisty i386 full repo is
> 33.1GiB, Dapper sparc full repo is 30.1GiB), and a binary only repo of about
> 17GiB (they all differ but that's about the max).
>
> Clearly if you wanted to fully load up a hard disk this is something that
> would be impractical on DVD. For example after Gutsy releases there would be
> 3 supported releases that you'd probably ship - Dapper (LTS), Feisty and
> Gutsy. Four (i386, AMD64, powerpc and sparc) architectures makes for a full
> repo size of 392GiB! - Binary only would be around 189GiB. It soon mounts
> up, especially if you go multi arch.
>
> Then there's the possibility of the other architectures like the PS3,
> however you might argue that someone who has a PS3 likely has broadband?
>
> Cheers,
> Al.
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
>

-- 
Matthew G Larsen
   > mat.larsen at gmail.com
   > +44(0)7739 785 249