So I'm trying out: http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
14mb/day, is less than 1GB a month. For S3 that's less than $1/month just for data transfer out, and a little more with CloudFront. It doesn't seem like this would be a problem unless if we were in the range of terabytes/month. As for hosting files on Gemcutter, I'm open to that if that's what is necessary for the transition. 80 mb/day is still a trivial amount for S3 or CloudFront to host, cost-wise. If I interpreted your findings wrong Tom, let me know. -Nick On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Tom Copeland <t...@infoether.com> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:57 PM, John Barnette wrote: > > Nick, >> >> On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto wrote: >> >>> 1) Redirect gems.rubyforge.org to gemcutter.org for gem serving. (all >>> gems >>> are currently mirrored from RubyForge and are ready for consumption) >>> >> >> RubyForge currently has a pretty good mirror system for supporting Gem >> downloads. I expect Tom could get your some figures on how much bandwidth >> they use. >> > > I just ran webalizer on the Apache log from the Bytemark mirror and it did > 14M gems of gem traffic on Monday. Figure Bytemark serves about a quarter > of the traffic, that's about 60M/day. File downloads eat a little more > bandwidth - that Bytemark mirror did 49M yesterday of files... it's serving > about 60% of the traffic, so files account for 80M/day, maybe. And of > course there are spikes here and there. > > Yours, > > Tom > > > _______________________________________________ > Rubygems-developers mailing list > http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems > Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers > _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
