Talk:Patch mirrors/Archive1

Align
I'd like to align the table content to the top of the table, and space the table out more left and right.. anyone got an idea how? -- CJ


 * Done (-: I also added a __ notoc __ (without the spaces) to the article - that doesn't need a TOC, and it messes up the display. Finally, I am moving this page - OneWordTitles are inappropriate, see Wowpedia:Naming policy.  Also is non-proper title, so only first word should be capitalized. --  &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide|undefined 00:54, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)

Looking better :) -- CJ
 * Added mirror for 1.84 US and DE

Please do not put links to php/perl sites. this WILL kill your server under higher load. Direct http/ftp links to files should be used. -- grokski
 * Will and Can are two different things. Direct links are called leeching if the person providing the mirror wants some type of credit for hosting the file. You should let them decide if they want their site to be killed.
 * I don't see how a perl/php site is intrinsically unfit for this. If you cannot set up your server correctly, that's your problem. Don't draw conclusions for other servers based on that. It's quite possible to serve hundreds or thousands of requests per second concurrently and dynamically -- and fail gracefully if that doesn't work out. (note that patch mirrors VERY rarely get more than maybe 50-100 reqs/sec hitting the main page. That's easy to accomodate. The hard part is accomodating 50-100 file requests/sec and actually serving them out -- most mirrors that die do so because their owners are not anticipating the amount of concurrent connections they'll have to service or the strain on the disk subsystem (in the case of large files), rather than there being some dynamic content involved somewhere; in fact, plenty of sites that have no dynamic content whatsoever die every patch cycle, while plenty of ones that do magically survive ;-)

I added http://a.wirebrain.de/wow/, which is a nice WoW patch site as far as I can tell. If anyone has problems with it feel free to remove it. -- st33m

Mac Patches
This page needs mac patches listed too. -- OwlBoy 14:15, 3 July 2006 (EDT)


 * So list them? It's a wiki! --Mikk 05:28, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

1.10
Wait, why the hell did someone delete the old 1.10 patches? This should be a page with all patches available why delete the old ones! -- Virogenesis


 * Why would you still need a 1.10 patch? Most websites do not keep old patches available, so the links would rapidly go out of date. In addition, the page would be extremely long and take ages to load. -- Kirkburn  (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2006 (EDT)


 * Check > History, if you need outdated patches. 1.12 is the current relative patch.  1.11 may still be needed by a few latecomers to update. but 1.10 is pretty much useless now. CJ 02:55, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

test server
hm, im wondering if we should list test sever patches in a seperate section here as well 10:59, 16 November 2006 (EST)


 * It would be great if someone did - been looking for a mirror for the 2.0.1 patch for days! I can't use the blizzard downloader. :( --Someone222 14:55, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Added mirror site for TEST patch 2.0.1.

official BT downloader for patches and trial client
I wonder if it would be allowed and besides that a good idea to allso put up links to Blizzard's BT downloaders for the patches. Also I want to ask if adding links to the trial client and it's BT downloader would be permitted since they could be seen as a base patch. --Elkano 15:38, 22 November 2006 (EST)


 * Kirkburn gave his OK on IRC so I started adding such links --Elkano 02:57, 23 November 2006 (EST)

Master patches
People should be encouraged to use master patches (ie, 'patch any') as it makes it easier at reinstall time. I added a comment with regards to this, specifically in regards to 2.0.1. I didn't really want to put it in the top part of the page, but it's going to be the one most seen right now. After 2.0.1's been out for a little while, I suggest the comment get re-edited to something more generic, and moved. --User:Normal 22:38, 5 December 2006 (AEDT)


 * I can't really agree with this -- it basically just wastes mirror bandwidth if everybody gets 1-2gb of data for every patch, in case they MIGHT, some day, reinstall. Most people don't reinstall every patch cycle, so most people getting the full patch is just wasteful (and people doing this on patch days deprive others of the bandwidth they could have used to get just the pieces they need). Score 07:14, 12 December 2006 (EST)


 * Aside that there is no 1.x -> 2.1 patch at all, or likely to be one. the comment doesn't really concern the patches, so i moved it to the tips are near the bottom. 07:40, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Realm stability
People rushing to get the patch early ahead of the Blizzard release contribute to early realm instability. By having masses of people logging in at the start of a new version, the servers are swamped and some potential problems may actually be made worse. By having a lower level of people with the patch upon release, it limits the overall instability, and directly affects less players. Flipside is that it also lessens the potential discovery of problems. As responsible geeks, we should encourage the sensible behaviour after major patches. This also helps Blizz ;-) --User:Normal 22:42, 5 December 2006 (AEDT)


 * Give me some of what you're smoking, please :-) It really doesn't matter when people get the patch. If the servers cannot handle the number of people that want to be on, something else is broken. Realm concurrency problems are being addressed with queues, anyway. People having or not having the patch really has no bearing on it all; all that it POTENTIALLY changes is the exact time at which everything comes crashing down, if indeed the stability problems are caused by concurrency problems and not other bugs. As responsible geeks, we should not be doing Blizzard's work for them; if they say "this patch is ready to be thrown at 8 million people", we should assume they have already tested it enough for that to be the case. If they haven't, tough cookies, no amount of "responsible" behavior on the side of the players will help. Score 16:04, 14 January 2007 (EST)
 * Additionally, I'm not exactly certain how anybody would get the patch early. You can't, to my knowledge, get it before Blizz releases it unless a Blizz employee leaks it. --egingell 11:36 4 April, 2007 (EST).

custom toc
Patch_mirrors/Toc Cant use the plain tocright, so making a custom version 07:46, 12 December 2006 (EST)

Removed old patches
If you need older patches than 1.12, check the page history. The page now carries only 1.12 and 2.0.1 :) -- Kirkburn  (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2006 (EST)

US 2.0.3
None of the 3 sites currently listed under the US heading are actually enUS patches - they are all enGB at best. And is this a real patch, or simply a test patch?
 * 2.03 is a partial patch, and is / should probably be universal up to this point 03:51, 2 January 2007 (EST)

US 2.0.4-Please Help!
I keep looking for a mirror to download this new patch but I can't find one. My network here at school thinks Wow patches I get from logging on to the server are P2P programs and thus block me. I need to find a website to download this patch so I can get back on WoW. Any help would be appreciated.

--> I've added http://www.SOLVUM.org as mirror for enUS patch -- User:Xarimas

General Patch Site
I've added my site to it which has pretty much all of the patches. It is really fast and no worries about bandwith; I have 6TB worth. My site is still in the production stages but can be used to download all the patches.

http://www.stormragerproductions.com/download.php?list.4
 * Your site often errors out (Internal Server Error). If that does not happen, you list dozens of mirrors, all of which are pointing to the exact same server. Why is that ? And last, but not least, please do not add modifiers such as "Super Fast". It's not true and it's not helpful. The speed I got was average :) You might want to look out though, 6TB will be gone extremely fast on patch days with big patches :) Score 19:31, 23 January 2007 (EST)
 * Just as a note, my bandwith grows by 64GB every week. I've tested the downloads speeds on the exact same connection on all the different sites and came out as Fileplanet as fastest then mine then Filefront and so on etc. I have also yet to see an internal server error on it. If you try it again and get it just get me a screenshot of it and I will get it fixed immediately. The listiing of ten mirrors to be exact that point to all of the same server is to help the server keeps its speed which is what is recommend by the hosting company.


 * (Sign your posts.. ) and give me your connection.... 06:51, 26 January 2007 (EST)


 * Here is a screen shot to the speed test I took on my connection speed. http://www.stormragerproductions.com/images/myspeed.GIF 00:16, 27 January 2007 (MST)
 * First off, the internal server error happened during the high-load phase. It was just a regular apache 503 with no further explanation. You should be able to find it in your error_log file. You not adding "Super Fast" doesn't have much to do with your upstream port. We all have at least 100mbit/s, some of us have more (and for nitpickers, your posted screenshot merely proves that you may be able to download at 90mbit/s -- it tells you nothing about how saturated the egress is). As for the hosting company recommendation, please go into more detail. 10 Links all masquerading for the exact same URL (and they do indeed lead to the EXACT same URL) increasing your speed is pure bollocks. If the hosting company indeed recommended this, they are either clueless or you misinterpreted them (it is true that you will get a higher speed if you open 10 connections with a download manager; but that is not server-side, that is client-side). As for your empiric test where it turns out that yours is the second-fastest site on your connection, it is just that. Empiric, and on your connection. I can virtually guarantee that I'm going to get faster speeds from European mirrors, for instance :-P Don't misunderstand me. "SUPER FAST" adds nothing to the value of the link and is naive at best. Last, but not least, if your traffic increases by 64gb a week, you will have a quarter of a terabyte per month. On big patch days, that is gone in a day or two. :) Good luck in either case, Score 14:01, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Reordering/Spamming
Something should be done about the handful of spammer/reorderers that constantly move their own mirror to the top or the bottom of the list. There is no good reason for them to do so. It clogs up the history. It is borderline spamming. And it doesn't even bring anything helpful to the table ... Last time I tried to update the layout a bit, my edit was rejected -- because a spammer HAD to reoder 5 links. StrageyInformer and wowpatches.de are the worst offenders, though VGPro seems to suffer from it, as well. I'm loathe to suggest alphabetical ordering since that would put my mirror on the top (and would likely spawn such funny things as aaaastrategyinformer !!!aaaawowpatches.de), but maybe something like a "once you put it there, leave it" kind of rule could be instituted. Most of tehse have been told on their talk pages to stop, but never listened. What say ye all ?Score 14:02, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I agree with you - we'd all like to have our sites at the top of the list, but that just can't happen. Strategy Informer seems to be the worst offender particularly because the patch he's advertising often doesn't exist on the site. However, unless/until the moderators decide to take action I don't know there is much we can do. --Maxreactor 20:09, 25 January 2007 (EST)
 * Alphabetical is most logical, and most difficult to "cheat" . i already sorted the "general links" section at the bottom. also removed a lot of duplicate listings which were not warranted 02:56, 26 January 2007 (EST)
 * User:JamieSI is one guilty party 11:00, 26 January 2007 (EST)
 * Alphabetical is easy to cheat, really. Just create a mirror called AAALLTHEBEST or something like that. In my case (a.wirebrain.de), the a. did not have to do anything with ordering, so I don't really care whether it's put in at w or at a, but the link should say a.wirebrain.de (since wirebrain.de, per se, carries no links at all).Score 14:02, 26 January 2007 (EST)
 * It would be nice if there were a way to specify a random-order list. I.e. reorder randomly on every pageload. That way cheating would be impossible, or at the very least very improbable. Unfortunately the only ways to do that in MediaWiki Syntax I can think of are ugly at best -- and not very editable at all. Score 21:22, 26 January 2007 (EST)
 * its not easy to cheat, as long as you keep an eye on ridiculous names`, rather than ninja edits.. 16:16, 27 January 2007 (EST)
 * a.wirebrain would be at the W btw. 03:29, 28 January 2007 (EST)

1.12
Moved 1.12 to the history page. 2.0.1 can probably also.

the TBC installation cd, which can be installed over 1.0.1 is 2.0.1 by default. 06:50, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Strategy Informer
i've reverted the SI edits again, as the only change he did was put his site to the top again..

if he does this again, please report him on the vandals page. 07:25, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Also keep an eye on User:Sunsu66 he does the linkbumping also.


 * Crazytalk, add me on msn please.
 * Jamie@strategyinformer.com
 * Getting annoyed with this, people move my links all the bloody time and move their own to the top.-- 05:58, 30 January 2007


 * "all" links need to be alphabetized, but i'm not going to take the time right now to go trough the entire page myself :P
 * Just dont edit your links up there, and if you see somebody else do it, then put them in the correct place. just because "somebody else" does it, doesnt mean everyone should do it.
 * i set 2.0.6 in alphabetized mode, somebody else with too much time on their hands can sort the rest of the list according to the site name.
 * You also need to "fix" your SI links to link to the apropiate address, e.g.:, and NOT the general site. so people can find the patch they are expecting to find with 1 click, and so people can see if a link is broken and report it.  08:44, 30 January 2007 (EST)


 * Just chatted with JamieSI on IRC, all good now. Alphabetised is the way to go, it's the only way we can keep the page under control. 09:07, 30 January 2007 (EST)


 * Philson and JamieSI are at it again, bumping their mirror to the top. It seems they do not care about this at all. Score 08:10, 16 February 2007 (EST)


 * wtf are you on about Score? I never bumped my mirror to the top, I've only just added our patch to the 2.08 list, get it right! . Score 08:10, 16 February 2007 (EST)


 * Note I said Philson and JamieSI. Look at the history and you might get an idea why. As per our IRC discussion, it turns out you seem to have nothing to do with that particular bump (although it was not in alphabetical order in the first place). Forgive me if I did draw the wrong conclusion (but you honestly cannot blame me for it considering the history) Score 08:24, 16 February 2007 (EST)

I get a virus warning (link to virusinfo: http://de.trendmicro-europe.com/enterprise/vinfo/encyclopedia.php?VName=PE_POLIP.A) by downloading patch 2.0.3 to 2.0.10 at all languages. Someone else? K-3 06:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)


 * I did the check on the file hosted by myself on sipif.com and it was indeed infected with a virus. Fixed now i hope. File still infected it seems, deleted my link. Sorry for the trouble. And fixed now.