On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 08:10:02PM +0200, Andreas Fuchs wrote:
> William Harold Newman wrote:
> I agree, avoiding spurious VCS switching is a very good thing.
> [snip again]
> > Second, how do we hand off the high-bandwidth services to SourceForge
> > (or whoever)? Or is that a nonissue? My rough guess is that it is
> > indeed an issue. [...]
> But I think I still can provide a bit of not-so-hard data and make a few
> This isn't too bad if you consider that some hosting companies offer
> dedicated servers with no traffic limit for around 49 EUR (I checked at
> hetzner). As another data point, repo.or.cz offers to host any git
> repository whose size doesn't exceed 100MB. If the data transfer cost
> for new checkouts is too high, the sbcl repository for "anonymous"
> checkouts could easily be moved there.
> As for why I haven't included "cg update" in this, I think the cost for
> it is negligible. A typical update for 1-3 months of data is an
> estimated less than 2 MB in transfer size. Smaller changes are in the
> dozens-of-kilobytes range. Unfortunately, I don't have any hard data on
> this (transfer logs for git-daemon would really have helped...)
> Anyway, given the presence of hosts like repo.or.cz (and the
> availability of cheap unlimited bandwidth), I don't think bandwidth is a
> big problem with git.
OK, that analysis sounds reasonable, and I will move this concern onto
the list of things I don't lose any sleep over. (By the time we got to
scenarios much worse than what you're describing, we might need to
start to worry about SourceForge getting grouchy:-| and I don't lose
sleep over that either...)
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C
"about as much chance as a one-armed blind man in a dark room trying
to shove a pound of melted butter into a wild cat's left ear with
a red-hot needle" -- Ukridge (P.G. Wodehouse)