MozillaZine

Alternate Mozilla 0.9.9 Download Locations

Friday March 15th, 2002

Mitchell Baker writes: "Mozilla.org has logged approximately 150,000 downloads of the 0.9.9 Milestone in its first 48 hours on the wire. Interest in 0.9.9 has been so great that we overwhelmed the 100 Mbit full duplex link from ftp.mozilla.org with heavy traffic." Because of this, mozilla.org and Netscape have set up a new set of servers (http, ftp) to handle the load. Also, you can check the mirrors list for servers closer to you.


#1 the http link doesn't work (nt)

by kryptolus

Friday March 15th, 2002 11:16 PM

Reply to this message

i said no text =)

#2 Re: the http link doesn't work (nt)

by kryptolus

Friday March 15th, 2002 11:17 PM

Reply to this message

whoah that was weird ... i was getting a 404 and i just went back and it loads fine ... weird

#3 ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/Mirrors/ftp.mozilla

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 4:05 AM

Reply to this message

This site is well out of date.

#4 Re: ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/Mirrors/ftp.mozilla

by dave532

Saturday March 16th, 2002 5:02 AM

Reply to this message

I heard something from a guy at imperial college who was doing a presentation at the UKUUG winter conference that sunsite UK isn't staying upto date anymore.

#5 Re: Re: ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/Mirrors/ftp.moz

by sjoerdv <sjoerd_visscher@hotmail.com>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 6:13 AM

Reply to this message

Note that the last update was 9/11/2001. And not only for Mozilla. Weird!

#15 I use ftp.mirror.ac.uk myself

by rkl

Sunday March 17th, 2002 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

I stopped using Imperial College's mirror site quite a while ago - <ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk> is now the de facto UK mirror site (not just for Mozilla/Netscape) as far as I'm concerned. Strange, though, how the ".uk" section of the mirrors list has <ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk> down *twice* (albeit one path slightly deeper than the other) ! Shume mishtake shurely ? :-)

#6 0.9.9 is getting a lot of good publicity

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

and people are having faith that 1.0 will be a substantial fraction of what it's cracked up to be.

I wonder what Netscape will do for servers when 1.0 is released ... What was the server load like when 6.1 and 6.2 were released?

How about something like what jwz describes <http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nscpdorm.html> was done when Netscape 0.9 beta was released. Perhaps not cannon shots: perhaps the sound of a handclap for each successful download. Applause!

#8 Re: 0.9.9 is getting a lot of good publicity

by kotalampi <risto@kotalampi.com>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 2:47 PM

Reply to this message

The new site, download.mozilla.org, is very scalable architecture. Right now it's distributed over 8 systems. Same systems host AOL/ICQ/Spinner/Netscape downloads and shouldn't have problems even with mozilla 1.0 volume.

#11 Re: 0.9.9 is getting a lot of good publicity

by garfieldbond

Saturday March 16th, 2002 4:48 PM

Reply to this message

Dunno what the load was, but I think Netscape has at least 30 or so download servers, and I think we're randomly sent to one of them whenever we go to <ftp://ftp.netscape.com.>

#12 Re: Re: 0.9.9 is getting a lot of good publicity

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 9:46 PM

Reply to this message

you're not randomly sent to anything. When you go to <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> you are going to a server called komodo.

--Asa

#14 ftp.mozilla.org?

by niner

Sunday March 17th, 2002 6:39 AM

Reply to this message

He did write about <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> and not .mozilla.org, is this the same server?

#16 Re: ftp.mozilla.org?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Sunday March 17th, 2002 9:47 AM

Reply to this message

ah, yes. you are correct.

--Asa

#20 Round Robin

by RudeDude

Monday March 18th, 2002 7:21 AM

Reply to this message

<ftp://ftp.NETSCAPE.com> used to be load balanced via simple RoundRobin DNS and there were other DNS entries for things like 'ftp22.netscape.com' whose IP would still be part of the round robin... it would appear to still be the case: # host <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 64.12.168.202 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 64.12.168.203 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 64.12.168.204 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 64.12.168.11 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 64.12.168.15 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 205.188.212.74 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 205.188.212.75 <ftp://ftp.netscape.com> has address 205.188.212.76

#19 ftp.mozilla.org?

by kotalampi <risto@kotalampi.com>

Sunday March 17th, 2002 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

Right now download.mozilla.org == <ftp://ftp.netscape.com.> download.mozilla.org is the primary hosting for 0.9.9 downloads NOT <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org.>

#18 Re: 0.9.9 is getting a lot of good publicity

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Sunday March 17th, 2002 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

You know what would suck, if someone wrote an article concerning the history of mozilla and read that and thought there was a 8 year gap between mozilla 0.9 and 0.9.9 that would suck :)

#7 How do mirror sites work?

by c960657

Saturday March 16th, 2002 7:35 AM

Reply to this message

Is content pushed to them, or do they pull from the official site?

Would it be possible to make sure that 1.0 is distributed to all mirros, before the release annoncement is sent to the masses?

How about advertising more heavily for the mirror sites?

#17 Re: How do mirror sites work?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Sunday March 17th, 2002 10:41 AM

Reply to this message

Mirrors contains copies of the content. Their purpose is to relieve traffic from the official source, so merely "pushing" or "pulling" from the official site does nothing to make the server's bandwidth job easier.

Whether or not the mirrors get the 1.0 release prior to the announcement and how well they are advertised is up to the people of mozilla.org (and Netscape for their resources) making the finishing touches on it.

#25 Re: a step forward, but ...

by bluetea

Friday March 22nd, 2002 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

Huh? I'm not sure what this means.

Of course distributing up-to-date stuff to the mirror sites will make things easier on the master. If the mirrors are out of date, nobody is going to use them and the master will be slammed. If you're just saying the specifics of the mirroring mechanism doesn't matter, obviously that's true.

The key here is getting them updated before somebody submits the release announcement to Slashdot, which is rapidly becoming an unofficial freshmeat.net mirror itself.

#9 Buildbar???

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 3:22 PM

Reply to this message

Is it no longer being updated?

#10 Re: Buildbar???

by garfieldbond

Saturday March 16th, 2002 4:42 PM

Reply to this message

I would imagine that Asa's (I think he updates buildbar) been busy recently.

#13 Re: Buildbar???

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday March 16th, 2002 9:53 PM

Reply to this message

I'll try to get back to it. I've been really busy lately. In the mean time you can find great comments on daily builds at the BuildBar Forum <http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback/list.php?f=4>

--Asa

#21 Platform breakdown?

by tack

Monday March 18th, 2002 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

150,000 downloads is quite impressive. Does anyone have any information about how many downloads per platform?

#23 Re: Platform breakdown?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday March 18th, 2002 7:50 PM

Reply to this message

After the first few days it was about 50% windows, 32% linux and 14% mac (with the other 3 or 4% mostly solaris and OS/2). This was with the not so great sample of only a few days (150K downloads) and it's possible that one of the platforms got higher visibility after that (slashdot notice seems to push the linux and windows downloads while versiontracker helps the mac numbers). I can get some better numbers soon. I expect to see a slightly higher Mac percentage if the trend of the last few Milestones holds.

--Asa

#22 Brilliant Stuff

by caclark

Monday March 18th, 2002 3:30 PM

Reply to this message

I have been following Mozilla for a while now, and am well chuffed with the amount of work being put into this excellent browser.

This is another triumph for the opensource community - as long as there is a source of advocacy for it (some site that lays the smack down - what the latest version of Mozilla supports, plain and simple). It would be nice to compare, standard for standard, Mozilla's abilities to Internet Exploder 6's abilities.

Well done Mozilla developers!

#24 Re: Brilliant Stuff

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday March 18th, 2002 7:58 PM

Reply to this message

"It would be nice to compare, standard for standard, Mozilla's abilities to Internet Exploder 6's abilities. "

For CSS, you can see for yourself. <http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Epy8ieh/cgi/listresults.pl>

--Asa