In my post kbps = kilo *BIT* per second. Maybe Guillaume means kilo *BYTE* per seocnd? Then we are not far from each others (but in my world it is common practice to use BIT for network transfer and BYTE for storage). - Peter On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Peter Laursen wrote:

Right now I get around 50 kbps on archive.mariadb.org. This means that a complete server package (with tests etc.) could take ~10 hours to download. Or even 4 days with the 6 kbps that Guillaume experiences (all roughly calculated numbers).

I understand the probems with hosting/storage (incl. costs) and mirrors refusing to host TB's of archived/historical data. But I don't understand what it has to do with bandwidth (I assume that the reduced bandwidth is not because of a lot of simultaneous downloads happening).

-- Peter

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Sergei Golubchik wrote:

...

Hi, Guillaume!

On Nov 12, Guillaume Lefranc wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

Download speeds on archive.mariadb.org have reached an abysmal level - 6kb/s today. Honestly, what is the foundation waiting for to solve this issue that has been lasting for years? I am ready to donate server space and bandwidth myself if needed.

It's an archive of historical versions, it's big, not suposed to be used often and it's intentionally bandwidth limited (as far as I can see in apache2.conf).

It has a miror, which is much faster (at least, for me, I've just tried), why wouldn't you use that?

There's only one mirror, because the archive is big (1.2T as of today) - we've had to create archive.mariadb.org specifically because our normal mirrors grew up too large and mirror hosters asked us to reduce the size somewhat.

Regards, Sergei Chief Architect MariaDB and security@mariadb.org

_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Hi Sergei! I am not sure where the mirror is. I needed a specific release of MariaDB (10.1.16) and the downloads page redirected me to this server. I'm just imagining what other, less informed users will experience themselves. Agreed that the limit is too slow to make it useful. I've resorted to using new downloads from the .com site, but I suppose .org should have a working archive as well. @Peter, I meant kilobytes (kB). Sorry as I always get confused by which symbol I should use. Le sam. 12 nov. 2016 à 17:26, Sergei Golubchik a écrit :

Hi, Peter!

On Nov 12, Peter Laursen wrote:

...

Right now I get around 50 kbps on archive.mariadb.org. This means that a complete server package (with tests etc.) could take ~10 hours to download. Or even 4 days with the 6 kbps that Guillaume experiences (all roughly calculated numbers).

I understand the probems with hosting/storage (incl. costs) and mirrors refusing to host TB's of archived/historical data. But I don't understand what it has to do with bandwidth (I assume that the reduced bandwidth is not because of a lot of simultaneous downloads happening).

I don't really know, I've only looked at the apache configuration for archive.mariadb.org.

But I would guess it's to prevent archive downloads affecting other usages of this box, it's also the buildbot master and build slaves are constantly up- and downloading packages.

I could agree that the current limitation is too low to be useful. Perhaps archive.mariadb.org can be moved elsewhere and then the bandwidth limit can be increased?

Daniel, what do you think?

Regards, Sergei Chief Architect MariaDB and security@mariadb.org

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sergei Golubchik wrote:

On Nov 12, Guillaume Lefranc wrote:

...

Hi Sergei!

I am not sure where the mirror is. I needed a specific release of MariaDB (10.1.16) and the downloads page redirected me to this server. I'm just imagining what other, less informed users will experience themselves.

Ah, I see. I didn't go from the downloads page, I went directly to http://archive.mariadb.org/ and the mirror was right at the top of the page.

In that case, hmm, perhaps we could just fix the download pages to redirect to the archive mirror for old releases? It's certainly easier than moving the archive itself.

That's a good suggestion. I've implemented it for old MariaDB releases. It appears to be working fine, but let me know if you have any issues with it. Thanks. -- Daniel Bartholomew, MariaDB Release Manager MariaDB | http://mariadb.com