On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Michael Snow <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 3/14/2013 10:26 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013, Erik Moeller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not >>> include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.; >>> budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of >>> course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an >>> organizational support structure (management/administration, legal, >>> etc.). >>> >> I'm not technically inclined, but those numbers sound odd. Maybe I'm >> missing something? The traffic ranking didn't go up nearly as >> substantially >> in the last couple of years as the hosting and cap-ex mentioned above. >> > I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis, > even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. I'm > pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for some > time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have remained flat > over that period. > > Aside from that, it's only recently that Wikimedia sites have approached > having the kind of redundancy and failover capabilities we've talked about > needing for a long time. That's at least one example of something that can > add pretty significant costs without having a material impact on traffic > (except in emergencies, of course). > > --Michael Snow Aye, I know for example that our page views have more then doubled in the last 5 years (since 2008) and I believe grew even more dramatically in the years before that. James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
