discuss: Thread: Duplicate Mirrors

Hello,
whilst browsing the mirror list I came across these two sites;

http://ldp.indosite.co.id/
http://ldp.indosite.com/

and looked at their IP adresses (ping), as their names seemed very similar, 
and sure enough they share the same IP address.  My immediate thought was to 
remove one, as we don't need two listed.  But then I hesitated, perhaps for 
local conditions two domain names are better than one?  Should they be 
reduced to one listing?
Cheers
Allister

Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####

> whilst browsing the mirror list I came across these two sites;
> 
> http://ldp.indosite.co.id/
> http://ldp.indosite.com/
> 
> and looked at their IP adresses (ping), as their names seemed very similar, 
> and sure enough they share the same IP address.  My immediate thought was to 
> remove one, as we don't need two listed.  But then I hesitated, perhaps for 
> local conditions two domain names are better than one?  Should they be 
> reduced to one listing?

I see no harm in both names being present.  What problem would you be
fixing?

On Friday 05 December 2008 21:41:32 Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####
> > whilst browsing the mirror list I came across these two sites;
> >
> > http://ldp.indosite.co.id/
> > http://ldp.indosite.com/
> >
> > and looked at their IP adresses (ping), as their names seemed very
> > similar, and sure enough they share the same IP address.  My immediate
> > thought was to remove one, as we don't need two listed.  But then I
> > hesitated, perhaps for local conditions two domain names are better than
> > one?  Should they be reduced to one listing?
>
> I see no harm in both names being present.  What problem would you be
> fixing?

My original thought was why should we point twice to same IP address.   It 
gives the impression that there is another resource mirroring the tldp site, 
when there is only one resource.  I thought it was misleading, that's how I 
saw it.  I suppose we could reference both urls on the one entry?
Allister

Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####

> My original thought was why should we point twice to same IP address.

Actually, of course we _aren't_ pointing to _any_ IP address.  ;->

I do know what you meant, but am hinting at a larger point:  You're
second-guessing the sysadmins in question.  You might be better at
network management than they are or not, but I really doubt you want to
take on that role, going forward.

> I thought it was misleading, that's how I saw it.

I don't think so.

It's not unknown for two physically separate sites to get merged for a
while as two virtual hosts on a single physical server -- and then later
get separated again.  Because the users of the two virthosts rely on the
DNS identities, they are shielded from the back-network details of where
hosting occurs physically, about which they don't actually care.  (I
have no idea if that's what's going on, here; I'm just saying it
sometimes does.)

The only respect in which the public might, theoretically, be said to be
"mislead" lies in the implication that, if the first site is down, it's
worth trying the second one.  For now, it's not.  But that's trivia,
really.  Point is, it's often the case that diverse sites live on the
same IP, for a variety of reasons of concern to the relevant sysadmins
and not unrelated third parties like us.  And I cannot remember LDP
having (or wanting) a policy of "No more than one mirror per IP".  

> I suppose we could reference both urls on the one entry?

Again, I really don't see what problem this addresses.

On Friday 05 December 2008 22:14:08 Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Mail Lists ####@####.####
> > My original thought was why should we point twice to same IP address.
>
> Actually, of course we _aren't_ pointing to _any_ IP address.  ;->
>
> I do know what you meant, but am hinting at a larger point:  You're
> second-guessing the sysadmins in question.  You might be better at
> network management than they are or not, but I really doubt you want to
> take on that role, going forward.
>
> > I thought it was misleading, that's how I saw it.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> It's not unknown for two physically separate sites to get merged for a
> while as two virtual hosts on a single physical server -- and then later
> get separated again.  Because the users of the two virthosts rely on the
> DNS identities, they are shielded from the back-network details of where
> hosting occurs physically, about which they don't actually care.  (I
> have no idea if that's what's going on, here; I'm just saying it
> sometimes does.)
>
> The only respect in which the public might, theoretically, be said to be
> "mislead" lies in the implication that, if the first site is down, it's
> worth trying the second one.  For now, it's not.  But that's trivia,
> really.  Point is, it's often the case that diverse sites live on the
> same IP, for a variety of reasons of concern to the relevant sysadmins
> and not unrelated third parties like us.  And I cannot remember LDP
> having (or wanting) a policy of "No more than one mirror per IP".
>
> > I suppose we could reference both urls on the one entry?
>
> Again, I really don't see what problem this addresses.

Fair enough, I shall leave them alone.  Thanks for the input
Cheers
Allister

Rick Moen a écrit :

> really.  Point is, it's often the case that diverse sites live on the
> same IP,

in other words, it's possible than the two mirror are really different
 computers or different folders on the same computer, two users of the
same ISP/university sharing the same IP.

It's also possible than one of the two domain name have some kind of
different function for the server admin

We have no way to know is the files are the same on the two URL

But it may also simply be a new mirror created and the old not removed
by error.

if there is a contact for the admin, may be you can ask him if one of
the domain name is obsolete?

jdd


-- 
jdd for the Linux Documentation Project
http://wiki.tldp.org
http://www.dodin.net