On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:49 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
(And really, data about which mirrors would be dropped would help:
maybe we can buy *them* a disk. Disks are cheap!)
Unless the shelf is full, there's no more plugs left on
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spare disk space isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
Spare bandwith isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
I see. Can we please have the numbers? Exactly how much disk space
is needed?
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The problem also isn't our machines but some mirror in
low-diskspace-land.
The amount of disk it takes to carry a complete Debian copy is simply
going to be increasing. We have to tradeoff dropping a mirror or two
against the costs of weakening
Am 2005-12-28 22:33:10, schrieb Benjamin Seidenberg:
Seriously? Where? I live in the states, and we pay approx. $50/month
(600 USD/year) for residential DSL (I think, parents pay the bill).
That's a 1.5m down/512k up pipe, with horrible reliability (alltel
sucks). Where can I get the fiber
Am 2005-12-27 16:04:42, schrieb Florian Weimer:
* Michelle Konzack:
Because we do not get 34 MBit and we have not a netload
of 100% 24/7 the price per GByte is around 50 US$/GByte.
This means you still have plenty capacity you've already paid for,
supporting Steinar's claim that
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need to pay 450.000 DHs (42.000 ¤) for an E3 of 34 MBit
which give you maximum 20-24 MBit because the Infrastructure is
to bad in Morocco then it IS expensive.
No. Based on what you've said, the price is the same regardless of
whether you
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Spare disk space isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
Spare bandwith isn't available to add amd64 to mirrors.
I see. Can we please have the numbers? Exactly how much disk space
is needed? Perhaps we can simply go ahead and buy more disks
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:31:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Afaict from the webpage 7zip (LZMA) is quite a bit slower bzip2. -
Have you perhaps run some benchmarks?
Memory use during decompression would be interesting, too.
For pure lzma it isn't really bad, it's about 100kb +
I demand that Benjamin Seidenberg may or may not have written...
[snip]
I read 120.000 as 120 dollars, I'm not used to the European '.' as the
seperator, but the US ','.
Hmm? You'd better file a bug against locales wrt en_GB, then ;-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
|
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Please not, that I had berween 12/1999 and 12/2004 a contract with a
Parisian ISP for a OC-3 and Hosting of one 19 Rack (210cm, 600kg).
I have payed including unlimited traffic 499.998 French Francs
(76.000 Euro) per month and my own Class-C Block registered at RIPE.
I
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
Michelle Konzack wrote:
Please not, that I had berween 12/1999 and 12/2004 a contract with a
Parisian ISP for a OC-3 and Hosting of one 19 Rack (210cm, 600kg).
I have payed including unlimited traffic 499.998 French Francs
(76.000 Euro) per month and my own Class-C
Michelle writes:
I heared (on debian-isp) that in the USA you can get a BGP4 routed STM4
(622MBit) Fiber Optic for only 120.000 US$ PER YEAR !!!
Benjamin writes:
Where can I get the fiber optic for $10/year?
I think you meant to write $10/month. However, Michelle is European and
uses '.'
Am 2005-12-22 16:04:45, schrieb Florian Weimer:
With traffic included? How's that more than 10$ per gigabyte
transferred and month? 8-)
IF you can reach 34 Mbit!
My old colo E3 at UUnet in Kehl/Germany was 5000 Euro/month
plus traffic of
as Reseller and End-User
Am 2005-12-22 16:31:57, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
On 12/21/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you paying 10 $/gb?
Heck yes, you can't get it that cheap unless you have no SLA (or one
of those insulting SLAs that come with residential service, claiming
that it doesn't
Am 2005-12-22 16:04:45, schrieb Florian Weimer:
* Michelle Konzack:
Am 2005-12-19 09:56:27, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
Are you paying 10 $/gb?
Where is it that expensive?
I pay 450.000 DHs (around 57.000 US$) in Morocco
for an E3 (34 MBit) with traffic included.
With traffic
On 12/27/05, Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
57.000 US$/month / 10 US$/GB = 5700 GB/month
5700 GB/month / 30,4 days / 24 h / 3600 sec = 2,22 MByte/second
2,22 MByte/Second ~ 28 MBit
12.6 bit/byte?
Because we do not get 34 MBit and we have not a netload
of 100% 24/7 the price per
* Michelle Konzack:
Am 2005-12-22 16:04:45, schrieb Florian Weimer:
With traffic included? How's that more than 10$ per gigabyte
transferred and month? 8-)
IF you can reach 34 Mbit!
My old colo E3 at UUnet in Kehl/Germany was 5000 Euro/month
plus traffic of
as
* Michelle Konzack:
Because we do not get 34 MBit and we have not a netload
of 100% 24/7 the price per GByte is around 50 US$/GByte.
This means you still have plenty capacity you've already paid for,
supporting Steinar's claim that bandwidth is cheap.
Just think about it. 8-)
--
To
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 02:17 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would
have to
be modified.
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would
have to
be modified.
I was talking about the hypothetical situation of dpkg defaulting to
!gzip compression and adding a
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
No, the packages themselves would include such logic in their debian/rules.
There's no way we'd want to keep buildds in sync with what the set of core
packages is.
That would realy defeat the purpose of not having to modify every deb.
We'd
On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 02:17 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would
have to
be modified.
I was talking about the hypothetical
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It would require some buildd hacking to get it to use gzip only for
those few debs so more human power.
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would have to
be modified.
I was
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would have
to
be modified.
I was talking about the hypothetical situation of dpkg defaulting to
!gzip compression and adding a Pre-Depends to the dpkg version
required for
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It would require some buildd hacking to get it to use gzip only for
those few debs so more human power.
debs are created by debian/rules. So, only dependencies of dpkg would have to
be modified.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 16:12 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
[snip]
The transition itself would go completly unadministered. Once dpkg is
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Goswin von Brederlow [Wed, Dec 21 2005, 04:19:56PM]:
Actual maintainer of dpkg is evaluating the possibility to use 7zip.
Even if the decision of using 7zip by default is far from being taken, it
looks
likely that dpkg will at
Andrew Suffield wrote:
As a general rule, UK bandwidth prices are roughly five to ten times
those of equivalent service in other EU countries. Not that you can
get equivalent service.
Ouch. I pay less than that for a T1 to my house, and far far far less
for bandwidth at a colo. I suggest that
Am 2005-12-18 12:36:05, schrieb Ron Johnson:
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 12:59 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the
Hi Andrew,
Am 2005-12-19 03:02:06, schrieb Andrew Suffield:
I wish we could get it that cheap for my day job. What we have to pay
to get useful bandwidth has more zeros in it.
I feel with you, because I have an E3 in Morocco and must pay
450.000 DHs wich are around around 43.000 Euro per
Am 2005-12-19 09:56:27, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
I wish we could get it that cheap for my day job. What we have to pay
to get useful bandwidth has more zeros in it.
Are you paying 10 $/gb?
Where is it that expensive?
I pay 450.000 DHs (around 57.000 US$) in Morocco
for an E3 (34 MBit)
* Michelle Konzack:
Am 2005-12-19 09:56:27, schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
Are you paying 10 $/gb?
Where is it that expensive?
I pay 450.000 DHs (around 57.000 US$) in Morocco
for an E3 (34 MBit) with traffic included.
With traffic included? How's that more than 10$ per gigabyte
transferred
On 12/21/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you paying 10 $/gb?
Heck yes, you can't get it that cheap unless you have no SLA (or one
of those insulting SLAs that come with residential service, claiming
that it doesn't have to work at all). And you can't get that at all on
a
#include hallo.h
* Goswin von Brederlow [Wed, Dec 21 2005, 05:03:41PM]:
$ uncompressor
-bash: uncompressor: command not found
This solution doesn't look usable in scripts and user have to use a
more complex syntax.
You have to replace uncompressor with whatever tool is the right to
#include hallo.h
* Goswin von Brederlow [Wed, Dec 21 2005, 04:19:56PM]:
Actual maintainer of dpkg is evaluating the possibility to use 7zip.
Even if the decision of using 7zip by default is far from being taken, it
looks
likely that dpkg will at least start supporting it.
Cheers,
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would this be huge?
Why is it that hard to plugin another codec?
You'd have to rewrite about every single tool in
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
Hi
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/
FWIW :
On 12/21/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
uncompressor file.tar.whatever | tar -x
$ uncompressor
-bash: uncompressor: command not found
This solution doesn't look usable in scripts and user have to use a
more complex syntax.
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12/21/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
uncompressor file.tar.whatever | tar -x
$ uncompressor
-bash: uncompressor: command not found
This solution doesn't look usable in scripts and user have to use a
more complex syntax.
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 16:12 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
[snip]
The transition itself would go completly unadministered. Once dpkg is
switched to default to a different
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 09:56:27AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 12/19/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:27:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steinar H. Gunderson:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap,
On 12/19/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:27:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steinar H. Gunderson:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap.
Depends. Decent IP service costs a few EUR per
Hi
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/
Comments are welcome...
Yours,
Gürkan
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap.
- CPU doesn't
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/
Afaict from the webpage 7zip (LZMA) is quite a bit slower bzip2. -
Have you perhaps run
2005/12/18, Andreas Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Gürkan Sengün [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/
Afaict from the webpage 7zip (LZMA)
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap,
On 12/18/05, Roberto Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the biggest problem is really updates. Packages like
XFree86 (no X.org) and Openoffice.org are *huge*. A simple security
update to one of those packages causes all subordinate binary packages
to get a version bump. That
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:41:03AM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
- CPU doesn't grow nearly as fast as those three.
In 1995 I had a Pentium 166 and a 56 kbps modem. Now, today the fastest
CPU you can get from Intel is 3.6 GHz. However, the fastest dial modem
you can get today is still 56k
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would this be huge?
Why is it that hard to plugin another codec?
You'd have to rewrite about every single tool in the world handling .debs,
make up a transition plan and upgrade from that. Not to mention that you'd
have to
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Have you perhaps run some benchmarks?
Thanks to Kingsley Morse Jr.: http://adn.diwi.org/debian/p7zip/7za.jpg
Even more precise at http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8051
--
adn
Mohammed Adnène Trojette
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 15:02 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:41:03AM -0500, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
- CPU doesn't grow nearly as fast as those three.
In 1995 I had a Pentium 166 and a 56 kbps modem. Now, today the fastest
CPU you can get from Intel is 3.6 GHz.
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 12:59 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
My comments are about the same as on
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would this be huge?
Why is it that hard to plugin another codec?
You'd have to rewrite about every single tool in the world handling .debs,
make up a transition
* Steinar H. Gunderson:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap.
Depends. Decent IP service costs a few EUR per gigabyte in most parts
of the world.
Thus, anything sacrificing lots of human power and CPU power to save on disk
or bandwidth just
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
Hi
I've run some scripts to find out the size of binary pakcages in debian
and how theycould be made smaller, here's the results:
http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/
FWIW :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Dpkg7Zip
Actual
* Andreas Metzler:
Afaict from the webpage 7zip (LZMA) is quite a bit slower bzip2. -
Have you perhaps run some benchmarks?
Memory use during decompression would be interesting, too.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would this be huge?
Why is it that hard to plugin another codec?
You'd have to rewrite
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:02:55 +0100
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention that a DVD-R can fit about three million times as much
data as a floppy disk, which was the dominant way of distributing
software at the time. We can continue keep playing these number
games, but I
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 09:08:21PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote:
Not to mention that a DVD-R can fit about three million times as much
data as a floppy disk, which was the dominant way of distributing
software at the time. We can continue keep playing these number
games, but I don't really see the
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would that stop working if you switch compression schemes?
I guess tar is coded to use gzip with -z and bzip2 with -j, but why is
there no generic way to add coders/decoders (codecs) to tar (and other
applications that wish
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would that stop working if you switch compression schemes?
I guess tar is coded to use gzip with -z and bzip2 with -j, but why is
there no generic way to add
Steinar H Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why would that stop working if you switch compression schemes? I guess
tar is coded to use gzip with -z and bzip2 with -j, but why is there no
generic way to add coders/decoders
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I guess what I'm asking is, why are tar and other applications using
gzip instead of a generic library that handles all
compression/decompression and can be easily extended.
General complexity, I'd guess. If you want “easily
On 12/18/05, Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
I guess what I'm asking is, why are tar and other applications using
gzip instead of a generic library that handles all
compression/decompression and can be easily
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:27:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steinar H. Gunderson:
My comments are about the same as on IRC:
- Disk space is cheap, bandwidth is cheap.
Depends. Decent IP service costs a few EUR per gigabyte in most parts
of the world.
I wish we could get it
68 matches
Mail list logo
