On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia is reaching a point where increases in bandwidth usage *may* actually result in reductions the total bandwidth costs. I'm not too concerned there. Certainly, Commons itself isn't a major bandwidth user.
I'm surprised, given images are large. I suppose thumbnails would be counted against the wiki they're generated on.
Nor is capacity... Common's growth over this year looks mostly linear, with an average growth rate of 27960 bytes per second.
[...]
redundancy (write every image twice, OK), even assume a doubling of the growth.. As long as it doesn't go exponential it's not scary at all.
You mean like en:wp's popularity? Imagine a popular Commons. (Assuming we can work out how to deal with the floods of crappy uploads that will result in.)
I currently mirror commons (and all WMF images) at home. At the current rates have space for a couple of years. Perhaps we'll have a nice growth spike? that would be good: I'd rather outgrow my storage before it starts failing on it.
Heh. You realise you have one of the few mirrors of Commons, then. You may wish to put some tarballs up on download.wikimedia.org.
Video should only up the rate by a constant factor. .. none of this is hard. To make it hard we need the increasing returns that can only come from increased adoption. Commons storage isn't hard but the mission of the commoners should be to make it hard.
Precisely :-)
- d.