On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, TerryE <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/08/11 23:28, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> With the wiki, if we really want to allow anyone to have write access >> to it, then we really need to be committed to fight the weeds, which >> in the case of wikis would be spam, low quality content, edit wars, >> etc. If we can re-establish the community participation level the way >> it was a year ago, then great. It would have a chance of success. >> But right now I see almost no activity on the wiki. 35,000 user >> accounts, but no users. If this doesn't change, the weeds will surely >> win. > > [terrye@doc logs]$ ls -hl > > total 112635922 > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Jan 12 2011 access.20110106.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 19 2011 access.20110113.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Jan 26 2011 access.20110120.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 2 2011 access.20110127.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.2G Feb 9 23:59 access.20110203.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 16 23:59 access.20110210.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Feb 23 23:59 access.20110217.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 2 23:59 access.20110224.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.1G Mar 9 23:59 access.20110303.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 16 23:59 access.20110310.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 23 23:59 access.20110317.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 2.0G Mar 30 23:59 access.20110324.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 6 23:59 access.20110331.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.9G Apr 13 23:59 access.20110407.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G Apr 20 23:59 access.20110414.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Apr 27 23:59 access.20110421.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 4 23:59 access.20110428.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.8G May 11 23:59 access.20110505.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.7G May 18 23:59 access.20110512.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G May 25 23:59 access.20110519.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 1 23:59 access.20110526.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 8 23:59 access.20110602.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.5G Jun 15 23:59 access.20110609.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.6G Jun 22 23:59 access.20110616.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jun 29 23:59 access.20110623.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 6 23:59 access.20110630.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 13 23:59 access.20110707.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.3G Jul 20 23:59 access.20110714.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.4G Jul 27 23:59 access.20110721.log > > -rw-r--r-- 1 webservd webservd 1.1G Aug 3 03:14 access.20110728.log > > We've discussed the update access reasons and issues previously. As you > can see from the Apache logs, the read volumes are still pretty high though > they have fallen off by almost a factor of two since the Apache > announcement. Sorry, but I can't give you proper transaction volumes. > Clayton had o:rw access, not me. >
No need to apologize. Read volumes are pretty much irrelevant when discussing a policy for editing. Or are you suggesting that this is related to caching policy? If so, that is a reasonable point. With only 5 people editing, with a very low rate of changes, and many people reading, caching should be very effective, at least on the most frequently-read pages. > Terry >
