Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...

> scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
> this will not be new for Apache in any way.
>

Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to
Maven Central, hosted by SonaType (in conjunction with / permission of the
Apache Maven PMC).

Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:


> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.


Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
of an organization they work for.

I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
this will not be new for Apache in any way.

Gj



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga"  com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
> For
> > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
> on
> > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
> different
> > under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> > somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.
>
> A couple of reminders:
>
> Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.
>
> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.
>
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
> coop
> > > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > > incubator (who cause the problem).
> > >
> > > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> > >
> > > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans
> infrastructure,
> > > it's
> > > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > > cliff
> > > > notes are as follows:
> > > >
> > > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > > depending
> > > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
> close we
> > > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are
> working
> > > > with
> > > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > > case.
> > > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web
> site,
> > > CI,
> > > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > > statistics),
> > > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > > time
> > > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > > phase.
> > > >
> > > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal
> giving
> > > the
> > > > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people
> willing to
> > > > host this.
> > > >
> > > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers
> offering
> > > > their
> > > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > > from
> > > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine
> costs
> > > > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
> board
> > > > for
> > > > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
> well
> > > as
> > > > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this
> into
> > > > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> > > utilize
> > > > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in
> the
> > > > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > > > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> > > >
> > > > With regards,
> > > > Daniel.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Rich Bowen]

On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" 
wrote:
>
> Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
For
> anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
on
> the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
different
> under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.

A couple of reminders:

Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.

Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
with VP Brand.

>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning 
wrote:
>
> > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
coop
> > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > incubator (who cause the problem).
> >
> > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> >
> > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> > it's
> > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > cliff
> > > notes are as follows:
> > >
> > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > depending
> > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
close we
> > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are
working
> > > with
> > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > case.
> > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web
site,
> > CI,
> > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > statistics),
> > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > time
> > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > phase.
> > >
> > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal
giving
> > the
> > > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people
willing to
> > > host this.
> > >
> > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > > their
> > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > from
> > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine
costs
> > > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> > >
> > > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
board
> > > for
> > > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
well
> > as
> > > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this
into
> > > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> > utilize
> > > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in
the
> > > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> > >
> > > With regards,
> > > Daniel.
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

I never said comparative use.
---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans 
Incubator Proposal)

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit :

>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context

So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.

Bertrand

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Rich Bowen]

On Sep 25, 2016 01:18, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >  E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.
>
> A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know
of several projects who do that.

The asf has a service - lists.apache.org -which does exactly this.
Automatically. For every project.  Running an additional service for this
is unnecessary extra work/expense.

>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit :

>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context

So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.

Bertrand

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:


> What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be
> solid justification that  a move to ASF will help the community grow.


This is the first I've heard of this.

My one data point is http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-
> Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports_medium=
> rebellabs_campaign=rebellabs (requires sign in). That reports shows a
> decline from 14% in 2012 to 10% today. To be fair that has been steady
> since 2014.


Here's my thoughts on that survey:
https://blogs.oracle.com/geertjan/entry/adding_some_color_to_the

 If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
> inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
> providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.


In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of
one development tool over another.

I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context.

Thanks,

Geertjan





On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> > notes are as follows...
>
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>
> > ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra
>
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
>
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings
>
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Daniel,

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows...

Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.

> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra

I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would suggest

1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
on these podlings

For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
the board / infra level.

-Bertrand

[1] 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
for example

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

My last sentence below is too terse... I know NetBeans is a different project 
to AOO. I should not draw a direct comparis0on between the two projects. I hope 
we can avoid a long thread on how Net Beans is more attractive to developers 
than other end user projects. However, my more general point of user numbers 
not being a good indicator is remains.

> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> 
> I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the 
> foundation.
> I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could go straight
> to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather than a 
> simple
> request for cash (see other mail).
> 
> As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of
> success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.
> 
> Ross
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> > NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> >
> > Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does
> > sign the check and should be worried about these things.
> >
> > Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an
> > IDE and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users!
> > This number is probably conservative since it excludes all the people
> > behind
> > (corporate) firewalls.
> >
> > Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help
> > the other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
> >
> > Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org
> > domain alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although
> > ASF might have a policy against ads, etc, etc)
> >
> >
> > --emi
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com');>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that
> > > > a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we
> > > need to know
> > what it is.
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> > > <ross.gard...@microsoft.com
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com');>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this
> > > > one project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> > > >
> > > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that
> > > > a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > > >
> > > > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF
> > > > projects for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think
> > > > carefully about how we spend our money. A solid argument that this
> > > > would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans will go a long way
> > > > to reassuring me (as one member,
> > > but
> > > > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> > > request
> > > > to the board).
> > > >
> > > > Ross
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Twitter: @rgardler
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunn...@gmail.com');>>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, Se

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the 
foundation. I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could 
go straight to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather 
than a simple request for cash (see other mail).

As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of 
success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.

Ross

> -Original Message-
> From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
> Incubator Proposal)
> 
> Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the
> check and should be worried about these things.
> 
> Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE and
> NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number is
> probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
> (corporate) firewalls.
> 
> Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
> other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
> 
> Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have a
> policy against ads, etc, etc)
> 
> 
> --emi
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com');>> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a
> > > move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> >
> >
> > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to 
> > know
> what it is.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> > <ross.gard...@microsoft.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com');>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> > > project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> > >
> > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a
> > > move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > >
> > > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF
> > > projects for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think
> > > carefully about how we spend our money. A solid argument that this
> > > would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans will go a long way to
> > > reassuring me (as one member,
> > but
> > > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> > request
> > > to the board).
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Twitter: @rgardler
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunn...@gmail.com');>>
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS]
> > > Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> > >
> > > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least
> > > a
> > coop
> > > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus)
> > > and incubator (who cause the problem).
> > >
> > > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> > >
> > > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mattm...@apache.org');>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > &

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one way 
or the other. That is not the case. What I'm saying is that to make a case for 
extra budget there needs to be solid justification that  a move to ASF will 
help the community grow. The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs to be a 
plan coming from the incoming project. The costings here are more than we 
usually get when a new podling is considered. This is a very good start.

The data I refer to is only one data point. If you have data that contradicts 
it then provide it in your request for funds (yes this has been discussed to 
some extent across the main discuss thread, but it needs to be packaged up 
nicely for VP Infra, Prez and finally Board to consider.

My one data point is 
http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports_medium=rebellabs_campaign=rebellabs
 (requires sign in). That reports shows a decline from 14% in 2012 to 10% 
today. To be fair that has been steady since 2014.

The reason for my explicit request is that the foundation is currently running 
at a significant deficit. That's not a problem since we have many years of cash 
in the bank at the current deficit. However, we do need to plan for the future. 
So any new budget requests need to be fully justified. That's all I'm asking 
for. A "just because" is not sufficient. Like you and others have said there 
needs to be evidence to back up claims, simply adopting the apache way does not 
mean that NetBeans will be successful as an Apache project. If my data (limited 
to the above single data point) is inaccurate/invalid/not representative then 
you should have no problem providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for 
this budget.

One final note, back in Jan 2015 the board approved a limited experiment with 
directed sponsorship to help alleviate issues like this. Maybe this would be 
useful to the NetBeans community. See presidents report here: 
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt

Ross

> -Original Message-
> From: m...@wadechandler.com [mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of
> Wade Chandler
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 8:04 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> 
> First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally the 
> NB
> community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
> projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews
> over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top 3.
> IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way, so I suggest 
> any
> comparisons to it, especially in the context of an organization such as 
> Apache,
> is not relevant. Money being one thing, and everything else another, including
> OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a fair question, but I hope not a 
> subjective and
> biased one.
> 
> Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
> instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
> project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
> to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This
> sounded like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache,
> but I don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email 
> is to be
> viewed negatively or not.
> 
> It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied in
> support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or code
> sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly 
> nebulous
> decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.
> 
> Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
> nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
> systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost share
> across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have plugins
> or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be consolidated?
> What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache line items? Has
> there been any such talk?
> 
> How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
> NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
> in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
> Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Wade
> 
> On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The ASF need to justify spe

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold 
wrote:
>...

> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
> a policy against ads, etc, etc)
>

We never run ads. Ever.

Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at
Daniel's subject: "Preliminary". No need to get too hung up right now.

Thanks,
-g

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Emilian Bold]

Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign
the check and should be worried about these things.

Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE
and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number
is probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
(corporate) firewalls.

Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.

Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
a policy against ads, etc, etc)


--emi

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com');>> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> > of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> > is seeing.
>
>
> OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
> that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
> of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
> behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
> evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ross.gard...@microsoft.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> > project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> >
> > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> > of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> > is seeing.
> >
> > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> > for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> > spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> > trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member,
> but
> > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> request
> > to the board).
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > ---
> > Twitter: @rgardler
> >
> > 
> > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunn...@gmail.com');>>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general@incubator.apache.org');>
> > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> > NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> >
> > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
> coop
> > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > incubator (who cause the problem).
> >
> > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> >
> > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mattm...@apache.org');>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','humbed...@apache.org');>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> > it's
> > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > cliff
> > > notes are as follows:
> > >
> > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > depending
> > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close
> we
> > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > > with
> > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > case.
> > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> > CI,
> > >   new build machines) and the project 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.


OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler <ross.gard...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.
>
> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
>
> Ross
>
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
>
> 
> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>
> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Wade Chandler]

First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews
over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top
3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way, so I
suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an organization
such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and everything else
another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a fair question, but
I hope not a subjective and biased one.

Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
to be viewed negatively or not.

It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
nebulous decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.

Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost share
across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have
plugins or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be
consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
line items? Has there been any such talk?

How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.

Thanks

Wade

On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.
>
> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
>
> Ross
>
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
>
> 
> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>
> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   whic

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>  E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.

A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of 
several projects who do that.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For
anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on
the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very different
under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans. The
question will be how much of the current NetBeans infrastructure will be
needed under Apache, which is something we can work on concretely during
incubation. Whatever costs have been identified in this phase can only in
the end be lower than the estimate, since we will have less in Apache than
we currently have in NetBeans. E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one project at 
the expense of that $10k going to other projects.

Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move of 
NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans is 
seeing.

It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects for 
NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we spend our 
money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans 
will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but also as the person 
ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request to the board).

Ross

---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans 
Incubator Proposal)

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
incubator (who cause the problem).

Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.

I will work with the board to determine the best form.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
>
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
>   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> with
>   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
>   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
>   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
>   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
>
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
>
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ted Dunning]

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
incubator (who cause the problem).

Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.

I will work with the board to determine the best form.


On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:

> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows:
>
> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
>   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> with
>   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
>   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
>   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
>   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.
>
> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> host this.
>
> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> their
> assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>
> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Chris Mattmann]

Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!

Chris


On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:

Hi folks,

I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
notes are as follows:

- 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
- 8-13 machines/VMS are required
- Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
  on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
  come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
  is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
- The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
  new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
  which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
  spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.

Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
host this.

Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.

Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
approving NetBeans as a new podling.

With regards,
Daniel.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Daniel Gruno]

Hi folks,

I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's
ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
notes are as follows:

- 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
- 8-13 machines/VMS are required
- Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year, depending
  on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
  come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
  is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in case.
- The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site, CI,
  new build machines) and the project (services, plugins, statistics),
  which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra time
  spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial phase.

Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
host this.

Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering their
assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case from
the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.

Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and utilize
the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
approving NetBeans as a new podling.

With regards,
Daniel.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org