Prioritisation vote: [Theforum] Re: meo

[Lachlan Cannon]

..jeff said:
> in addition, meo requires a fair
> amount of resources.  there's work that has to be done whenever a new
> account is requested (and i've the feeling that happens all too often)
> and even more work when it's approved. work has to be put in constantly
> to monitor the server's security and close up new holes in the myriad
> of products in use on that machine.  so, we need to either put a cap on
> the number of accounts or we need to increase our hosting capacity by
> buying more hardware in the future.  imo, meo is a bottomless pit.  i'd
> love to save it, but not at the expense of *anything* else.

And beo isn't? It doesn't require increased hardware, but as browsers get
bigger, and we getmore of them, and beo gets more famous, it'sgoing to suck
up increasing amounts of bandwidth - at least meo can have a bandwidth cap -
 if it gets too much bandwidth usage then review current members' standing,
and make it harder to get an account. (also, Dan mentioned a while ago
about people using meo only for image hosting -- we need someone to send
out a warning to meo members, and then conduct an audit of accounts
sometime soon, and delete the ones used for image / filehosting - just a
thought).
>
> why isn't deo higher on the list?  well, it's php/mysql which is a dime
> a dozen for hosting out there.  it should be a trivial task to find a
> cheap or free host for that.

OTOH - doesn't deo already have all it needs in it's present environment?
why not include it in the weo area (which I'm assuming includes feo as
well. It's not a huge bandwidth / hardware hog.

Lach
--------------------------------------
http://members.evolt.org/luminosity/
MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org
--------------------------------------