On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 14:11 -0800, Jack Bailey wrote:
> Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:
>
> > It's not a matter of voting... it's a matter of paying for the ftp server
> > bandwidth. Using bittorrent you pay for the transfer by uploading a bit
> > yourself, not to mention that many volunteers (like me) leave their
> > bittorrents clients up and running long after they're done downloading
> > (I've already uploaded about 35 DVD's worth).
>
>
> What's the difference between 4 CDs and 1 DVD split into 4 chunks?
> Nothing. If you want to make a case for distributing costs, then yank
> the CDs and make them only available as torrents as well.
>
umm ... we are already distributing the CD ... if/when we distribute the
DVD, that is, of course, that is an additional doubling of the size.
The major issue with the DVD is still it's size. At > 2gb (x12 arches)
it is a problem to all but FTP and apache that has been given LFS
support.
So, Jack, are you writing the check to do (2.2gb/DVD)x(12 DVDS)x(100
mirrors)= 2640 GB = 2.64 TB just to get the DVDs to the mirrors.
Also we are going to have a CentOS5 and CentOS6 probably before we get
rid of centos-2 ... and there will be 4 arches (OR 11TB) just to
transfer the DVDs to the mirrors them ... and it makes 26.4GBx4=105gb of
mirror space just for DVDs ....
I'm not sure you have completely though out the implications of your
simple suggestion.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060322/3110e54a/attachment.bin
