Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Scott Koranda <>]

> 
> > On Aug 10, 2016, at 12:12 PM, Cantor, Scott 
> > <>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> I think there would have to be some real benefit (not just experience
> >> gained) before we would consider doing that. From where I sit, the
> >> current distribution method Just Works (TM) so I have to turn around
> >> and ask InCommon deployers: Is there something about the current
> >> distribution method that is suboptimal or not working for you (apart
> >> from the size of the aggregate of course)?
> > 
> > I don't think the point was to help us (and nobody is suggesting the URL 
> > would change), so if Ops doesn't think incorporating a cloud/CDN delivery 
> > strategy under cover of a name controlled by InCommon is a useful step 
> > for its own MDQ direction-setting, I don't think any of us would motivate 
> > it.
> 
> Well, I just found out from Tom last week that TSG is
> planning an upgrade to the Ann Arbor network, in part
> motivated by the "storm" of network traffic that our
> metadata updates cause when clients fetch a new aggregate
> each business day.  In that regard, trying out a CDN would
> probably help alleviate our demand on at least that one
> network.  It would also gain us operational experience
> working with a CDN service.  If I had my 'drothers, I would
> have two new ops staff already hired who would be part of
> this and gain operational knowledge from it.  I don't think
> that will happen until later this year or next, so if IJ and
> others in TSG think they might be able to get some useful
> experience out of this, and that it would help with the
> network issue or in other ways, I'd be in support.

IJ? 

Can you ask others in TSG?

Thanks,

Scott K