Distributed bandwidth (was RE: [Theforum] Re: [Content] Mail Alert! - Sat Jun 22 31226)

[.jeff]

john,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: John Handelaar
>
> Don't take this personally, please, but...
>
> Bluntly, I'm not seeing the point of this discussion.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

likewise, don't take my response personally, but ...

i'm not seeing the point of your rebuttal.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> IMHO having loads of individual 'volters hosting
> tiny little chunks of the archive as well as
> large full-service mirrors in operation seems to serve
> no purpose other than making a couple of evolters
> happy to be able to say they're doing it.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

 - multiple sources to download from
 - user can select a source closer to their location
 - multiple points of failure instead of single point
 - allows people that want to help out that either don't
   have enough disk space or enough bandwidth to offer
   for the entire archive
 - allows us to include links to the original source
   of the browser wherever possible without treating
   those links as special cases (exceptions suck)
 - gets us closer to the idea of 5-6 mirrors per
   browser instead of 1-3
 - gets the community involved in supporting an
   evolt.org offering that they use regularly rather
   than having to rely on a faceless corporation
 - gives those willing to help out a chance to pimp
   themselves (mirror profile and download page)
 - little mirrors will be much easier to solicit than
   a couple large full-service mirrors
 - having lots of little mirrors will make it easier
   to solicit the bigger full-service mirrors

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> If (eg) sunsite.org.uk is carrying a mirror of the
> entire archive, why on earth would we also offer
> 'Steve's home PC with upstream capacity of 128kbps' ?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

first off, people that can't offer continuous connectivity would be
discouraged from participating as a mirror.  if we implement ratings, they
could serve as a measure of the quality of the availability and throughput.

however, if "Steve's home PC" is connected continuously, why can't he help
out?  people on dial-up don't care that he's only got 128kbps.  if he's
closer to them and that's what matters to them, then they'll use his mirror.
steve gets to help out where he can and he feels good about it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> And yet it's consuming almost all of the space within
> our discussion of mirroring, while touting for *real*
> mirrors is getting none at all. Grr.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i see no reason why we can't have both types of mirrors co-exist in the
structure i've outlined.  you wanna take the lead on getting a couple
full-service mirrors involved?

thanks,

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/