History : Before W3C-LA
- Web Servers in
- Boston
- Sophia
- Grenoble
- Keio
- One Common Name : www.w3.org resolved by a modified DNS
- Boston serving the World + W3C-MIT Team
- Sophia serving W3C-Sophia Team + french users
- Grenoble serving W3C-Grenoble Team + french users
- Keio serving W3C-Keio Team
- Three Contents :
- W3C Team Site
- W3C Member Site
- W3C Public Site
- Based on a Common Shared Filesystem (AFS) and a leased line
USA-France
- Bad Reliability : numerous risks of failures
W3C-LA objectives
Providing a better access to the W3C Production : Place the W3C web site
near customers
- One Mirror Site per Office (at least)
- Mirrors in badly connected countries
In terms of QoS, for members and public :
- Improvement of performance : bring W3C production in badly connected
countries
- Improvement of reliability : decrease the risks of W3C resources
unavailability
Questions to Solve
- How to update mirrors
- How to deal with partial mirrors
- How to deal with failures
- Local Failures : a mirror goes out of sync
- Global Failures : the general broadcasting system is
down/unreachable
- How to share the Internet among an evolving set of mirrors
How to Transmit Pages/Resources ?
- Which Resources to transmit ?
- in terms of modification time
- in terms of ACL
- When to transmit Resources ?
- System or user (W3C Customers) driven updates ?
- Periodicity of updates :
- True Real Time ?
- As soon as possible / as soon as detected ?
- Differed ?
- How to transmit data between master and mirrors ?
- Which Protocol ?
- Which Underlying Network ?
Classical Mirroring Solutions
HTTP & Proxy-Cache Solutions
Advantages
- Include Authentication (delegated to master servers) :
- Include Management of Modification Time
- Caches store only served documents
Drawbacks
- No caching of protected pages : no improvement for members
- User (W3C Customers) failure driven
- No 'Perhaps Out of Date' error Code : no way to serve pages if masters
down
Conclusion : will not fit to badly connected countries and will not
improve reliability
HTTP and Prefetching
- HTTP not designed as a transport protocol
- Poor compared to dedicated algorithms/protocols :
- Diff Algorithm (dedicated 1-to-1)
- Multicast (dedicated 1-to-many)
Experimentation
- 2 transport protocols tested :
- RSYNC
- MFTP : commercial reliable multicast product
- 2 physical networks :
- 4 test sites :
- RAL - England
- CWI - Netherland
- SICS - Sweden
- FORTH - Greece
Results of the Experimentation
- MFTP over Internet
- Not reliable with badly connected countries (Greece) due to :
- The way multicast works over UDP
- The limits of MFTP not implementing technologies on bandwidth
adaptability
- RSYNC over Internet
- Very good reliability due to TCP
- Cheap solution
- Few maintenance
- Bad performance with badly connected countries
- Bad scalability
- if the traffic of www.w3.org increases
- if the number of mirrors increases
- if the connectivity between W3C sites and mirrors becomes worse
:
- Greece is part of the European backbone
- Taiwan is not working
- Morocco and Tunisia have a very bad Internet
connectivity
- MFTP over Satellite
- Very good performance
- Very good scalability
- Limited cover
Solution : Rsync + Mftp-Satellite
- MFTP-Satellite on all mirrors covered by satellite
- RSYNC between uplinks
How to deal with partial mirrors
- Problem : Mirrors will not contain the whole W3C site (no Team-only
resources)
- Aim : Keep a common name space and keep transparency for all users (W3C
staff included)
- Solution : development of a dedicated Apache module for transparent
proxying
How to deal with failures
- Local Failures :
- Neighbouring
- Proxy (with IP authentication developed)
- Global Failures :
- Implementation of "Perhaps out of date" error through CGI
How to assign Clients to mirrors
A two steps method
- An apriori assignment according to distance between clients and mirrors
(AS path analysis)
- A check after assignment given the time to serve requests (Statistics
on HTTP logs)
Deployment
- One satellite uplink in Sophia
- 5 mirrors in Europe :
- RAL serving Janet Network
- SICS serving the most of Swedish providers
- FORTH serving most of Greek providers
- CWI (*) no users
- GMD (**) : GMD users - rsync
- 2 mirrors in Asia :
- Hong-Kong : serving HKUST
- Taiwan (*) : no users
- 3 other mirrors scheduled :
- CNR - Italy
- Morocco
- Tunisia
Achievements
- Improvement of reliability for members and public :
- One week of failure in April for not European users
- One day of failure in May
- Improvement of response time / performances
- Cheap, quick and reliable way to start mirrors everywhere in "big
Europe"

Web Mirroring : an internal W3C project ?
International acknowledgement of the technical work done :
- Accepted Informational RFC
- 2 Apache modules integrated in the Apache Core Distribution
Industrial Cooperation :
- Eutelsat
- StarBurst Communication
- JCSat
Academic Cooperation :
- Inria - Rodeo Group
- Bremen University
- University of Pisa
- Keio University
Interested Users :
- French Department of Education
Possible Outlets :
- All companies working with the same 1-to-many 'extranet' scheme
- Replication of any kind of files hierarchies
Involved People
- Luc Ottavj (Inria)
- Jose Kahan (W3C - Sysweb Team)
- Emmanuel Duros (Inria - Rodeo) & Patrick Cipiere (Inria -
Rodeo)
- Jean-Laurent Wotton (W3C Summer Student)
- W3C-LA Technical Contacts :
- Neil Calton (RAL)
- Piet Beertema (CWI)
- Lars Nilsander (SICS)
- Demos Panagopoulos & Panos Psikos (FORTH)
- Juergen Christoffel (GMD)
- Samuel Kwan & Ban Szeto (HKUST)
- Hao-Ren Ke (Taiwan University)
- The W3C Sysweb Team
- Alan Kotok (Team Leader)
- Gerald Oskoboiny
- Renaud Bruyeron
- Eric Prud'Hommeaux
- Daniel Veillard
- Takeshi Yamane (till april 31 1999)
- Stephan Montigaud (till Dec 1 1997)
- Pierre Fillault (till Jul. 31 1998)
- Touyama Norio
- Hirakawa Yasuyuki