[mirror-admin] ERROR: chroot failed for fedora-web

[Carlos Carvalho]

Paulo Licio de Geus (paulo at las.ic.unicamp.br) wrote on 16 January 2009 10:35:
 >Carlos Carvalho wrote:
 >
 >> Paulo Licio de Geus (paulo at las.ic.unicamp.br) wrote on 15 January 2009 19:41:
 >>  >Carlos Carvalho wrote:
 >>  >
 >>  >> Carlos Carvalho (carlos at fisica.ufpr.br) wrote on 16 January 2009 00:18:
 >>  >>  >I was going to ask you for the specs of report_mirror, that is, what
 >>  >>  >info it sends and how. Then I can provide you the info with what I
 >>  >>  >have here without the dreadful disk scan.
 >>  >>
 >>  >> In fact, it'd be much better if we could send only what has changed
 >>  >> instead of the whole list. Even better, we could just give
 >>  >> report_mirror a list, either of changes or complete, and it'd transmit
 >>  >> it as it does now.
 >>  >>
 >>  >> --
 >>  >>
 >>  >>   
 >>  >
 >>  >But then out-of-syncs would remain untouched.
 >>
 >> Not sure what you mean here. Files not mentioned in the changes are
 >> supposedly already registered.
 >>
 >>  >A periodic full scan or the whole list available for some more
 >>  >relaxed, periodic checking would do it...
 >>
 >> Both the disk scan and sending the full list are necessary only for
 >> the first time. That's why I said above that the reporter should
 >> accept both changes and the whole list.
 >>   
 >
 >Quoting you:
 >
 >> Exactly. Incremental lists are not robust. Worse, they are even not
 >> necessary.
 >
 >
 >Sh*t happens, i.e. failures will occur. The question is when/how your
 >out-of-sync server (away from the changed list) will be able to recover.

I said that report_mirror should support both changes-only and full
lists. Mirror updates must be done with the full list always.

--