[Tails-dev] Cleaning IUKs and updating disk space requiremen…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Autore: sajolida
Data:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Oggetto: [Tails-dev] Cleaning IUKs and updating disk space requirements for mirrors
Hi,

During the 2.12 release at least one of our mirrors run out of disk
space. They followed our instructions closely and allocated 10 GiB (we
ask for "5-10 GiB") and apparently we're now a bit above 10 GiB. I'd
like to:

1. Make sure that we have a process set up to clean very old IUKs.
For example, we could say that we only keep IUKs for the big version
number. IUKs for 2.x until 3.0 is out as a change in the big version
number will lead to no IUK for everybody. Right I see IUKs for 1.0~test
on the mirrors which lead me to believe that there is only an ad-hoc
process:

http://dl.amnesia.boum.org/tails/stable/iuk/

I didn't check what the release process says about that.

2. Fix the current requirements which seems too low. Let's do a bit of
calculation. Now is a quite epic time for mirrors with 12 versions in
the 2.x cycle and a heavy preparation for 3.0 so it a good time to
adjust our requirements.

- We're now publishing two IUKs per version (n-2→n and n-1→n) and they
are 263 MiB on average. So for 12 versions and 6 RCs, that's 30 IUKs and
7.7 GiB.
- We have 3 IUKs for 3.0~betaX and will have at least 2 more (beta4→rc1
and rc1→3.0) and they are significantly bigger. That's 1.9 GiB.
- We have 2 full ISO (2.12 and 3.0~beta4) and might have 3 max if we
include an RC. That's 3.0 GiB.

So that's 12.6 GiB.

We shouldn't discard publishing even more IUKs in the future (I think
anonym had some crazy plan about this somewhere).

3. Have more explicit requirements. Apparently not every mirror has good
monitoring of their disk space, so putting a range as requirement could
lead to more failures than setting a strict requirement. So what about
updating our documentation to say something like:

"You will also need 15 GiB of disk space maximum."

4. Make sure that we don't break them again silently in the future.
Would it be complicated to check the size of the whole thing during the
release process? I'll let the RMs tell me if it's worth the extra work.