----- Original Message ----- > From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: Sourceforge and AOO 3.4 distribution > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > wrote: >> We're still exploring available options and collecting >> data imacat. Right now an existing ooo mirror operator >> has reported to us that his average bandwidth consumption >> for ooo was ~100Mbps. It would help us to know how many >> mirrors support the existing mirrorbrain service for ooo >> to get a guess as to what the impact would be for Apache >> mirrors, but we are anticipating similar bandwidth requirements >> for our mirrors given the available data. >> >> >> What we currently need are estimates related to peak downloads >> during the initial few days / weeks of a release. Anyone >> with historical data on this needs to step forward and share >> it ASAP- 300K strikes me as an off-peak figure at this point. >> > > I have not seen any actual log files with this info, but there are > reported tidbits that might be useful, such as: > > "OpenOffice.org 3.0 was downloaded 3 million times in its first week, > with about 80% of the downloads by Windows users, an official with the > group said in a blog post on Monday." > > http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117575/OpenOffice.org_3.0_scores_strong_first_week > > So per day that is 430,000, around 50% much more than the average we > saw in February. Not as much as I expected.
Thanks Rob. Combined with http://mirrorbrain.org/users/ reporting "over 100 mirrors" for OpenOffice at ~100mbps, that means we really are averaging over 100 TB / day, and we can start to anticipate a need for 150-200TB for sane handling of peak traffic. > > What I don't know is when they enabled the update notifications > feature then, if it even existed in 3.0. I think that will have a big > impact on download peaks. In fact, we might even want to be clever, > like have a CGI that sometimes says there is an update available, and > sometimes does not, just to spread out the load more evenly. For > example, if we have our server respond "you have the latest" 90% of > the time, then it will take several requests on average for the > auto-update feature to prompt the user to download the update. So we > have some ability to throttle that demand, based on our CGI. Sound suggestion.
