Julie Kemp wrote:
I understand that, Cunc, but wouldn't Bomis
having
larger, perhaps more redundant (and mirrored) servers
work as well?
Yes, and it's worth noting that we are a long long way from this
really mattering. Traffic would have to increase by a factor of 10
before I would really start to care at all. I'm happy to throw
another couple of servers at the system, if it is justified by traffic
levels.
It's very expensive, but
isn't that where the advertising comes in?
Well, we're running free software on commodity hardware. I'm happy to
supply whatever we need for the visible future. So no money will be
necessary from any sources other than me for a long time. It's not
_that_ expensive.
I know
remote networking is viable, but is it practical? It
just doesn't seem to be a sensible solution long-term.
Can you imagine having to deal with migrations, etc.,
every time someone decides to back out? Ugh.
I think it's very impractical and "pie in the sky" from a technical
point of view. There's a lot of neat ideas out there -- freenet,
etc., but we aren't really a *technical* project, we're an
_encyclopedia_ project. So I agree with you completely.
Our great virtue, to date, is that we stick to what we know.
Inventing astounding new distributed hosting solutions seems too far
off our central mission. We should, of course, utilize the best
available stable technology at any given point in time.