Hello,
As you might or might not know, the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 [1] is running. We have also made an archive [2], which we want to be available as a zip download. This archive contains all Featured Pictures of 2006 and their licensing and description. This archive is 550 MB big. Would it be possible to have it hosted on download.wikimedia.org?
Thanks, Bryan [[:commons:User:Bryan]]
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 [2] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~bryan/poty
On 2/27/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
As you might or might not know, the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 [1] is running. We have also made an archive [2], which we want to be available as a zip download. This archive contains all Featured Pictures of 2006 and their licensing and description. This archive is 550 MB big. Would it be possible to have it hosted on download.wikimedia.org?
Hi.
I've turned your directory into a 500mb zip. I've made a torrent from the zip. We can host a tracker on toolserver.
In addition to the wikimedia bandwidth, I can provide about 10mbit/sec.
We frequently see people advocating BitTorrent for download.wikimedia.org. I am not convinced that we get enough transfers of a single dump to make it worth while. However, POTY will probably get more traffic.. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment.
Any objections?
So what's going on? Will this archive appear on download.wikimedia.org as well or not? I think it should be made available as a 'plain' zip download as well. And the torrent is not being hosted on Wikimedia servers, which it should be for reliability at least. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/archive )
thanks Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 28/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
As you might or might not know, the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 [1] is running. We have also made an archive [2], which we want to be available as a zip download. This archive contains all Featured Pictures of 2006 and their licensing and description. This archive is 550 MB big. Would it be possible to have it hosted on download.wikimedia.org?
Hi.
I've turned your directory into a 500mb zip. I've made a torrent from the zip. We can host a tracker on toolserver.
In addition to the wikimedia bandwidth, I can provide about 10mbit/sec.
We frequently see people advocating BitTorrent for download.wikimedia.org. I am not convinced that we get enough transfers of a single dump to make it worth while. However, POTY will probably get more traffic.. I think it would be a worthwhile experiment.
Any objections?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 3/4/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
So what's going on? Will this archive appear on download.wikimedia.org as well or not? I think it should be made available as a 'plain' zip download as well.
I recommended against that on the basis of the frequent and incessant advocacy of BitTorrent as a cure all for our bandwidth related issues, and that we couldn't have a better fit for BitTorrent than this application.
And the torrent is not being hosted on Wikimedia servers, which it should be for reliability at least. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/archive
Yes it is. Where did you get the idea that it was not?
On 04/03/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
So what's going on? Will this archive appear on download.wikimedia.org as well or not? I think it should be made available as a 'plain' zip download as well.
I recommended against that on the basis of the frequent and incessant advocacy of BitTorrent as a cure all for our bandwidth related issues, and that we couldn't have a better fit for BitTorrent than this application.
Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will prefer?
And the torrent is not being hosted on Wikimedia servers, which it should be for reliability at least. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/archive
Yes it is. Where did you get the idea that it was not?
Yeah, sorry, that was my bad :)
cheers Brianna
On 3/4/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I recommended against that on the basis of the frequent and incessant advocacy of BitTorrent as a cure all for our bandwidth related issues, and that we couldn't have a better fit for BitTorrent than this application.
Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will prefer?
Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough bandwidth to support it.
I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make such things available.
The open questions are: 1) can we continue to support large files with our existing model and 2) what alternative exist and what are their limitations.
A lot of the bittorrent software is fairly buggy, ... after the time I spent on it today I would have much rather forgone the BT software and worked on something else... but I do think that it is important that we gain some concrete and direct experience with it.
I've hacked BitTornado such that it has become almost a one click dowload program. Unfortunately I forgot to pack it with gdiplus.dll, so it is not working on all Windows pc's. As I am writing this, I don't have access either to gdiplus, so I cannot currently fix it. Hope to have it done this evening, or find a way to make wxPython independent of gdi+.
Bryan
On 3/4/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
I recommended against that on the basis of the frequent and incessant advocacy of BitTorrent as a cure all for our bandwidth related issues, and that we couldn't have a better fit for BitTorrent than this application.
Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will prefer?
Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough bandwidth to support it.
I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make such things available.
The open questions are: 1) can we continue to support large files with our existing model and 2) what alternative exist and what are their limitations.
A lot of the bittorrent software is fairly buggy, ... after the time I spent on it today I would have much rather forgone the BT software and worked on something else... but I do think that it is important that we gain some concrete and direct experience with it.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 04/03/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
I've hacked BitTornado such that it has become almost a one click dowload program. Unfortunately I forgot to pack it with gdiplus.dll, so it is not working on all Windows pc's. As I am writing this, I don't have access either to gdiplus, so I cannot currently fix it. Hope to have it done this evening, or find a way to make wxPython independent of gdi+.
Those of us using modern Linux distros will find that just clicking on a torrent link will start the BitTorrent download working in a completely transparent manner. Which is nice. Are things really that bad on Windows and Mac?
- d.
Windows does not have a builtin BitTorrent client. The only major webbrowser that has BitTorrent builtin is Opera.
The problem with the dll's is now fixed, unfortunately I don't have anything here that looks like a compiler, so I cannot create a new exe here :(
Bryan
On 3/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
I've hacked BitTornado such that it has become almost a one click dowload program. Unfortunately I forgot to pack it with gdiplus.dll, so it is not working on all Windows pc's. As I am writing this, I don't have access either to gdiplus, so I cannot currently fix it. Hope to have it done this evening, or find a way to make wxPython independent of gdi+.
Those of us using modern Linux distros will find that just clicking on a torrent link will start the BitTorrent download working in a completely transparent manner. Which is nice. Are things really that bad on Windows and Mac?
- d.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
It appears to be stable and running.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/archive
Bryan
On 3/4/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
Windows does not have a builtin BitTorrent client. The only major webbrowser that has BitTorrent builtin is Opera.
The problem with the dll's is now fixed, unfortunately I don't have anything here that looks like a compiler, so I cannot create a new exe here :(
Bryan
On 3/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
I've hacked BitTornado such that it has become almost a one click dowload program. Unfortunately I forgot to pack it with gdiplus.dll, so it is not working on all Windows pc's. As I am writing this, I don't have access either to gdiplus, so I cannot currently fix it. Hope to have it done this evening, or find a way to make wxPython independent of gdi+.
Those of us using modern Linux distros will find that just clicking on a torrent link will start the BitTorrent download working in a completely transparent manner. Which is nice. Are things really that bad on Windows and Mac?
- d.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
Windows does not have a builtin BitTorrent client. The only major webbrowser that has BitTorrent builtin is Opera.
There are a couple of Firefox plugins in development. Examples found with a quick Googling: http://code.google.com/p/bitfox/ http://moztorrent.mozdev.org/ http://www.redswoosh.net/foxtorrent/index.html
I haven't tried them myself, though. When I hit a torrent file I've simply configured Firefox to download it and open it with Azureus, it takes just two clicks to get the download going.
Brianna Laugher:
Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will prefer?
Gregory Maxwell:
Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough bandwidth to support it.
I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make such things available.
we don't currently pay for bandwidth at knams (which includes hemlock), so if you want to offer HTTP download as well, i don't see that being a problem.
of course not many people are going to bother with BT if there's an HTTP alternative ;-)
- river.
Hoi, The fact that we do not pay now only means that we have to be a good guardian of someone else's money. Money is being paid for the band width. It is good to be frugal because we do not pay now, will this remain the case ??
We are doubling in size regularly so it pays to be good. Thanks, GerardM
On 3/5/07, River Tarnell river@attenuate.org wrote:
Brianna Laugher:
Wouldn't offering it as both be a good way to see what users will
prefer?
Gregory Maxwell:
Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough bandwidth to support it.
I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make such things available.
we don't currently pay for bandwidth at knams (which includes hemlock), so if you want to offer HTTP download as well, i don't see that being a problem.
of course not many people are going to bother with BT if there's an HTTP alternative ;-)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF7CZ9rCkrk04PPEoRAgbrAJ9CxJsd4g9YZUu+Qhc+5uK/CnZc1ACfcHgU ub7JOcyBAwoIdiyigAOzr3Y= =gIzy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 3/5/07, River Tarnell river@attenuate.org wrote:
Gregory Maxwell:
Users would probably prefer the http/ftp download link option. It's simple, easy and fast.. at least it is so long as we have enough bandwidth to support it.
I don't believe that anyone thinks otherwise. But user preference is irrelevant if the cost of bandwidth causes us to choose to not make such things available.
we don't currently pay for bandwidth at knams (which includes hemlock), so if you want to offer HTTP download as well, i don't see that being a problem.
[shhhh. The folks who complain that we spend too much on bandwidth might move on to subjects which are harder to refute...]
of course not many people are going to bother with BT if there's an HTTP alternative ;-)
Yes, this was my point. Geek fetishism would be the only reason use BT if we offered it via http. :) This would prevent us from learning about BT, which may or may not make sense for the future.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org