From: <wil...@ai...> - 2007-07-05 21:16:06
|
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 > guesses: [...] > 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 <wil...@ai...> 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) |