Putting in place traffic shaping on winehq

[Sebastian Lackner]

On 10.04.2017 22:27, Jeremy White wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> We've been getting nailed with peak charges on the traffic coming from
> the WineHQ web server.
> 
> We think a large reason for this is that we were not sophisticated in
> how we flushed the fastly cache, so we'd get slammed in a big rush when
> we flushed.
> 
> I believe that Jeremy Newman has fixed that now, so hopefully it won't
> happen again.  But those overcharges are brutal (i.e. thousands of
> dollars) :-(.
> 
> So I'm planning to put in place some traffic shaping to provide a hard
> upper limit for winehq (I'm going to impose 8Mbit; we currently pay for
> 10Mbpit committed; if I up that to 20, I may expand that).
> 
> This should not disrupt anything, but I thought I'd warn folks, so you'd
> know to blame me if things suddenly go dark <grin>.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 

Hi Jeremy,

I would like to let you know in advance that putting up such a
bandwidth limit could indeed cause a lot of trouble as soon as we are
pushing the next release. Actually there shouldn't be a big difference
between doing a cache flush and pushing a new release.

With an average size of about 3,3GB for each release (counting only
the development and staging version) and a limit of 8 Mbits, this
means populating even a single CDN mirror will take about 56 minutes.
In practice this is probably a big underestimation because multiple
servers might do queries at the same time. May I ask what the previous
peak bandwidth was exactly?

I would also like to offer to use our build servers for the CDN
synchronization. I believe that we should have sufficient resources to
deal with such traffic peaks, and we are already doing the builds
anyway. Please let me know if this would be an option.

Best regards,
Sebastian