SOURCEFORGE
sourceforge wrote me back, there is a 100 meg limit on the website, there is no limit on the files distribution part. (so we are fine)
PLANET MIRROR
they host some of the OO.oX11 stuff, so I emailed them about this project. There is no space or bandwidth limits, we just have to submit the project for review (which i am looking in on how to do)
MY STUFF
so i looked at my other server today (yes i have two, i am that kind of nerd) and on my plan it says "unrestricted bandwidth". so i have written to ask for clarification before we take them up on that offer.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:44 pm Post subject:
As to moving to sourceforge, I've definitely thought about that from time to time In terms of distributing binaries, i think it's awesome...and sourceforge doesn't require soruce to be hosted, only an OSS license IIRC (e.g. ooodocs has near no code but is still hosted). I would up doing the hosting just for reliability...with my own servers I know that I have valid backups on tape and CD and can easily get console access to do server maintenance, install security fixes, and the like. It's a tradeoff between that 'self-assured' server reliability and bandwidth. My DSL has been happy with the CVS server load, web load, and trinity, but it's the binaries and FTP that wound up taxing it (thus I had to put on the 2 user limit).
The nice thing with my DSL is that I have no overall transfer cap. My bandwidth is limited by the upper rate of my DSL, but my ISP has no problem if I use my entire bandwidth continually. I think it works out to about 100-200 GB/month depending on the variance in my sustained rates. I get charged the same if I transfer 3K/month
It's those large binaries that just suck away all the bandwidth...and have people clamoring for fast connections...you know, those expensive kind that we can't afford...
The real trick with sourceforge or anywhere that becomes a mirror is going to be judging how they respond a month after their requested bandwidth goes through the roof. It'd suck to become dependent on a source that decides to cut us off. Several regular OOo mirror sites dropped out after they realized the demands on their bandwidth...and I'm sure that if we started to creep up there we'd even have a problem with sourceforge.
There's a reason why Sun doesn't distribute binaries of OOo on the Collabnet network even for the Solaris/win32/linux-x86 builds...it costs too much for all that bandwidth and the end-user demand is too high. There's was about an order of magnitude difference between the requests for binaries and the requests for source last I checked, and I don't even think that Collabnet hosted the source tarballs, only the CVS server.
The problem with bandwidth is that it's just not free, even for OSS projects. Sigh. A centralized transfer point will just eventually cost too much for any single entity to volunteer to meet the OOo demand.
BitTorrent is nice in the fact that you can get files...but it doens't actually 'enforce' sharing of the P2P bandwidth and makes it possible to 'leech' off the network. I can probably get reliable .torrent files hosted on the OpenBSD server serving up trinity, but am unsure if my bandwidth would provide a reliable 'root' server for a full network.
The only other possibilities I can think of are to either set up a mirror network (or get ourselves pushed on to the OOo mirror rnetwork), try to get a reliable P2P xfer thing going that lets folks know when they're donating bandwitdh (like seti at home), or to hook into government subsidized bandwidth...
On that final note...does anyone have any advice on how we might be able to get an edu mirror or something like that (e.g. sunsite?). I had been in touch with someone offering a UK edu mirror, but I think the project was rejected since it wasn't affiliated with the university. I had hoped to be able to put it up on my old Princeton website but I can't remember my damn CS department password
The real trick with sourceforge or anywhere that becomes a mirror is going to be judging how they respond a month after their requested bandwidth goes through the roof. It'd suck to become dependent on a source that decides to cut us off. Several regular OOo mirror sites dropped out after they realized the demands on their bandwidth...and I'm sure that if we started to creep up there we'd even have a problem with sourceforge.
I think you have a very good point here. After thinking about your comment, I realized that in the current configuration, the worst my ISP is going to do is up my fees. At that point, the choice is in my hands: I can cough up some more money or just let downloads happen until I hit their bandwidth limit. If I am using SourceForge as the primary site, it could be a real hassle to try to get people to go to any alternate site that we could put together.
OPENSTEP wrote:
The only other possibilities I can think of are to either set up a mirror network (or get ourselves pushed on to the OOo mirror rnetwork), try to get a reliable P2P xfer thing going that lets folks know when they're donating bandwitdh (like seti at home), or to hook into government subsidized bandwidth...
If we had one or two more mirrors that can handle the load that my ISP does, then I think things would be quite ideal. I will ask around about getting NeoJ binaries on the OOo mirror network. I know that they are hesistant to put GPL stuff out there, but Sun's http://java.net site will host GPL software so, in theory, I might have a chance to wedge NeoJ into the mirror network.
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:40 pm Post subject: Bandwidth usage this month
In 14 days neooffice.bustininc.com served 17158.79 Megabytes. It's great how popular NeoOffice/J is becoming and I'm glad to be able to help out. My mirror is unfortunately out of bandwidth for this month, but will be ready to go again full steam next month.
I hope that there are enough mirrors to keep Patrick's ISP from charging him an arm and a leg. It wouldn't be fair for him to not only develop this wonderful release, but then also be burdened by distribution issues.
Was it determined that SourceForge was a bad idea? It may be possible to use SourceForge AND the current mirrors.
Joined: Jun 23, 2003 Posts: 36 Location: Seward, Alaska, USA
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:40 pm Post subject: What about Apple???
Has anyone checked on the bandwidth limit(s), if any, of a Dot Mac site? I'm willing to cough up the $100/year for that if the limits are reasonable.
What about talking to the folks at Darwin Ports?
How about putting the source(s) into the Fink repository? _________________ Faster than a speeding slug!
I'm Paraplegic Racehorse.
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:59 pm Post subject:
I seem to remember the transfer cap on .mac being 1GB/day last time I checked. If I recall I wasn't able to find anything regarding the transfer cap in the standard consumer oriented descriptions, but I think it was stated in one of the knowledge base articles.
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
In terms of distributing binaries, i think it's awesome...and sourceforge doesn't require soruce to be hosted, only an OSS license IIRC (e.g. ooodocs has near no code but is still hosted). I would up doing the hosting just for reliability...with my own servers I know that I have valid backups on tape and CD and can easily get console access to do server maintenance, install security fixes, and the like. It's a tradeoff between that 'self-assured' server reliability and bandwidth. My DSL has been happy with the CVS server load, web load, and trinity, but it's the binaries and FTP that wound up taxing it (thus I had to put on the 2 user limit).
