>
> Hi, Javilk:
>
> 1) I can't imagine that there are 3000 people on this list. Are there?
Last I heard, it was at least 2,500 mentioned on this list some year or
two ago. (Have I been on this list that long???)
> 2) I'm on a listserv out of Spokane, run on a simple unix/apache box,
that serves up way more than 200 mails/day to a list of 350 ... multiplied
by 10 (that is, there are 10 separate lists on the server). It's not a
drag on the system; the server doesn't "burp"; and post-to-receive times
are minimal (not the hours I've experienced on WC list).
>
(I really wish you would reset your margins to 72 chars.)
Well, if you can handle the load... apparently someting back on the
clever.net host can't. I still think it is a configuration problem
coupled with a don't care attitude by clever.net.
My puny P200 on a 28.8 modem takes about an hour or two to clear 500
e-mails when I run the freebee keywords list.
> 3) the distributed model still sounds like a coordination headache to
me.
Yes, it could be. That is certainly a downside to it. However,
subscriptions would be handled locally. I suppose that a monthly
administrative message would include some table of servers and locations,
with the request that people mis-matched unsubscribe from their current
list, and re-subscribe to their geographically nearest list. That way,
the users themselves handle most of that.
As long as the central server is up, everyone gets mail. If it goes
down, the list of 30 satellites should be easy to move; whereas a list of
3,000 subscribers requires a lot more hardware to support.
If every satellite has a backup of the central list, changing the
central is just a matter of changing one subscription.
It could also be done without a central, with each list including a
subscription to the other lists. Thus, any e-mail goes to the 100 local
subscribers, plus the 30 peer lists. That way, if one machine is down,
only that region gets blacked out; whereas if there were a central to go
down, it would black out all but one satellite list. Peer-to-peer sounds
better, though central is easier to understand. Other kinds of webs could
be set up, but they get more complex.
-- 1 --> Peer #2 == 100 ==>
sender -- 1 --> Peer #1 -- 1 --> ...
locals <== 100 == -- 1 --> Peer #30 == 100 ==>
100 posts 100 in, 10,300 out 100 in, 10,000 out (each machine)
-- 1 --> satellite #1 == 100 ==>
> > sender -- 1 --> server -- 1 --> Central -- 1 --> ...
locals <== 100 == -- 1 --> satellite #30 == 100 ==>
> >
> > 100 posts 100 in, 3,000 out 100 in, 10,000 out,
> > Total daily delivery: 300,000
> >
> > With a distributed list setup as per above, the central list machine
> > only has to handle 30,000 pieces of e-mail in order to service the 3000
> > subscribers with the total of 300,000 pieces of e-mail.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------- IMAGINEERING --------------------------
----------------- Every mouse click, a Vote -------------------
---------- Do they vote For, or Against your pages? -----------
----- What people want: http://www.mall-net.com/se_report/ ----
---------------------------------------------------------------
--- Have you analyzed your viewer's footprints in the logs? ---
--- Webmaster's Resources: http://www.mall-net.com/webcons/ ---
--- Web Imagineering -- Architecture to Programming CGI-BIN ---
---------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The NEW Web Consultants Association FORUMS and CHAT:
Register Today at: http://just4u.com/forums/
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
Give the Gift of Life This Year...
Just4U Stop Smoking Support forum - helping smokers for
over three years-tell a friend: http://just4u.com/forums/
To get 500 Banner Ads for FREE
go to http://www.linkbuddies.com/start.go?id=111261
---------------------------------------------------------------------
