Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Proceedings optimizations?

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:49:32 -0700

Dear Tools-Development...

Recently there has been some discussion about optimizing various parts of
the server filesystem, especially in regards to the placement and location
of Internet-Drafts.  I note that we now have a one-stop location for all
Internet-Drafts we know about "/archive/id/".

But there is one additional location that contains Internet-Drafts that we
didn't consider - and that's the proceedings directories.  As you may know,
each proceedings subdirectory for each meeting contains actual copies of
all of the Internet-Drafts referenced during that particular meeting.

# ls /a/www/www6s/proceedings/91/id | wc -l
719

# ls /a/www/www6s/proceedings/90/id | wc -l
1273

In the past, when we "burned CDs" of each meeting's proceedings, that might
have made sense.  But we no longer do that, and I'm wondering if perhaps
there might be a better way of handling this - such as hard- or sym-linking
- in the future?

Submitted for your consideration....

Thanks!
Glen

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:37:37 -0400

Glen:

Thanks for the suggestion.

Back when we burned CD-ROMs for the proceedings, it made sense to have an actual copy.  We do not do that any more, so it seems to me that links to the archive copy is completely fine.

What do others think?

Russ

On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Glen wrote:

> Recently there has been some discussion about optimizing various parts of the server filesystem, especially in regards to the placement and location of Internet-Drafts.  I note that we now have a one-stop location for all Internet-Drafts we know about "/archive/id/".
> 
> But there is one additional location that contains Internet-Drafts that we didn't consider - and that's the proceedings directories.  As you may know, each proceedings subdirectory for each meeting contains actual copies of all of the Internet-Drafts referenced during that particular meeting.
> 
> In the past, when we "burned CDs" of each meeting's proceedings, that might have made sense.  But we no longer do that, and I'm wondering if perhaps there might be a better way of handling this - such as hard- or sym-linking - in the future?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 21:40:41 -0400

links make sense to me

Scott

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 9:37 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Glen:
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:29:24 -0400

Glen,

I think links are fine (and am pressed to contrive a scenario where hard 
links would have been an issue even when cds were produced. )

That said, what are you trying to optimize? I suspect that the bytes saved 
on disk will be quite small, perhaps 5-7G,  when evaluated against modern 
disk sizes and labor to optimize....

Lou

On April 22, 2015 6:50:26 PM Glen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ----------

---

From: Glen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:45:24 -0700

Lou -

I am not necessarily trying to drive anything specific here, but I am
rather supporting the efforts of the Tools Team whenever I possibly can.

In this case, I *think* (but he will correct me) that it was Robert who
originally began working on optimizing things - not only for space but also
for efficiency and manageability - so I'll defer to him on any commentary
as to the reasoning.

Thanks!  :-)

Glen

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> But there is one additional location that contains Internet-Drafts that
>> we didn't consider - and that's the proceedings directories.  As you may
>> know, each proceedings subdirectory for each meeting contains actual copies
>> of all of the Internet-Drafts referenced during that particular meeting.
>>
>> In the past, when we "burned CDs" of each meeting's proceedings, that
>> might have made sense.  But we no longer do that, and I'm wondering if
>> perhaps there might be a better way of handling this - such as hard- or
>> sym-linking - in the future?
>>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:04:59 -0700

Me too. 

Bob

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 18:40, Scott O. Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> links make sense to me
> 
> Scott
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:23:32 +0200

On 2015-04-23 03:37, Russ Housley wrote:
> Back when we burned CD-ROMs for the proceedings, it made sense to
> have an actual copy.  We do not do that any more, so it seems to me
> that links to the archive copy is completely fine.

Yup, agreed, with a preference for hardlinks in this case, if the
files are on the same filesystem.

	Henrik

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:36:27 -0400

> files are on the same filesystem.

+1