Yeah but it's old news, we're at 12k/s already... ;)

On May 1 2006, Domas Mituzas wrote: One and a half year ago we were proud of 10,000 HTTP requests/s, As of today we're doing over 50,000 requests/s during peak. http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-yearly.png We're still growing strong. :) Thanks again to the entire technical team and everyone else who made this possible on our small budget; without further software/architecture improvements and optimizations since last year, this would not have been possible. :) -- Mark Bergsma <mark(a)wikimedia.org> System & Network Administrator, Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-yearly.png

When I donate to the WMF, do I help paying for the blue only, or also for the green part of these diagrams?

On Nov 27, 2007 3:10 AM, Lars Aronsson <lars(a)aronsson.se> wrote: Wikimedia Deutschland doesn't support infrastructure in this manner. Their sponsorship at knams is the toolserver. Space and connectivity at Knams is provided by Kennisnet. The equipment is provided by the WMF. Yahoo has provided equipment and connectivity in Korea for the Yaseo cluster. Traffic from Tampa is paid for by Wikimedia at impressively low rates. Spreading traffic out to many locations can reduce Wikimedia's ability to lower costs by putting more traffic on smaller amounts of equipment and by negotiating lower rates for the traffic (like many other things Internet capacity costs much less per unit when bought in bulk). As a result the whole costs must be considered and weighed carefully. The increases in traffic actually make increased distribution more viable. It must also be kept in mind that when Wikimedia accepts enormous gifts of capacity it comes with the risk of dependence. Fortunately, Mark has been building a long term plan for network capacity which will continue to lower the incremental cost for connectivity as Wikimedia's connectivity needs rise without significant risks of dependence. There will be more announcements related to this in the coming months. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

In many of those countries end-user points are often connected by satellites, so no local caches would help. Unless, of course, we'd have our own satellite :)

On Nov 30, 2007 12:35 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Actually, one would need three geostationary satellites to cover the whole earth. Then still you don't have coverage in Antartica and Northern Russia and Canada, which would mean that you need additional satellites in very eccentric polar orbits. Maybe an idea for fundraiser 2050.

Think big, huh? ;) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

On May 1 2006, Domas Mituzas wrote:

> today we came over 10k HTTP requests per second (even with inter-squid > traffic eliminated). Especially thanks to Mark and Tim, who've been > improving our caching, as well as doing lots of other work, and > achieved incredible results (while I was slacking). Really, thanks!

One and a half year ago we were proud of 10,000 HTTP requests/s, As of today we're doing over 50,000 requests/s during peak. http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-yearly.png We're still growing strong. :) Thanks again to the entire technical team and everyone else who made this possible on our small budget; without further software/architecture improvements and optimizations since last year, this would not have been possible. :)

David Gerard wrote: If web traffic increases, causing a higher bandwidth cost, that is then covered by Kennisnet, that *doesn't* answer the question why one should donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. (Perhaps one should donate to Kennisnet, or at least say thanks to all the taxpayers in the Netherlands.)

I'm not against donations, but I'm against blurring these facts. We should know, rather than guess, what is the best solution and who can pick up which bill.

As Domas pointed out, much cost is involved in the thin black line at the bottom of that diagram. The diagram doesn't show why one should need to donate. The amount of web traffic that is handled is indeed impressive. But it isn't necessarily related to costs.