>>>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
>
You're right, I did not think of the storage or getting them to the
mirrors. I was thinking only of the act of downloading.
That said, I think "who's writing the check" is a strawman. Mirrors are
provided by volunteers who can opt out any time they decide the costs
are too great.
Jack
