[Imc-tech] Re: IMC-US website on groogroo server:

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi Zach,

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Zachary C. Miller wrote:

> I do not want anyone else to rely on us until our infrastructure is
> seriously improved. I'm working on that when I get back...but who
> knows, maybe McLeod and Volo will both suck. I'm starting to think
> seriously about doing a Colo somewhere.
>
> Anyway, we definitely do not have the available resources to host
> US-IMC right now. Our bandwidth is very often maxed out and a national
> IMC site is certain to have lots of high bandwidth stuff. We're not
> the right people to be serving this. US-IMC needs to be on a T-1 or a
> colo.

Right now we've got the best infrastructure for the site that we have
available -- not perfect, but then again, until this last mess with Sol
Tec, we've been more stable than some ISPs (think Prairienet).  The site
might max out our current bandwidth eventually, but it would also provide
damn good leverage to raise the funding necessary to improve our network
-- think of it as a bootstrapping methodology.  At least for the
foreseeable future there wouldn't be much stress put on our infrastructure
at all (I doubt we'll even launch before the end of this year or early
next year) -- we still have to build the syndication system after all.
Mainly though, we're the best option we have right now -- if there was a
big old T-1 or colo, I'd be all for it, but there isn't.  Also, in terms
of helping put us on the map (and keeping us on it), this is an absolutely
brilliant opportunity.

> Perhaps if all the improvements that I'm working on all work well then
> maybe it'd be worth it but right now I feel VERY overwhelmed with the
> number of people that rely on Groogroo that are completely let down by
> all the downtime. I want to take care of them, make sure they are well
> served, before piling on some HUGE new project. Sure it wouldn't be
> extra work maintaining the site, but dealing with the increased demand
> on resources and the increased number of people bitching at me when
> things out of my control take the site down would be hugely
> stressfull.
>
> Now if US-IMC can put a bunch of money in the pot (say a few thousand
> up front and $200-$500/month) then things may be different.

I think this is something that we can build up to -- there's certainly
much more money in a national website than in our local stuff -- and the
potential donor audience is _much_ larger.  But either way, the site won't
need any bandwidth to speak of for another few months.  And we have to
start somewhere to achieve the dream of a full-on rocking infrastructure.
It might be a bit scary right now, but honestly, it's probably our best
opportunity yet to build out our network infrastructure.

I really think we should do this -- the worst thing that would happen is
that 6 months from now we realize that we have to move the project to a
better location with more bandwidth, but for now, we have nothing to loose
and the potential for _lots_ of gain.  I can understand the stressed out
feeling, but I will take the heat from the IMC-US group if something goes
wrong.  In the meantime, I'd really like to see us support this project.

Let me know if this timeline helps alleviate your fears about the site &
getting some DSL backup before things go big.

--Sascha

> Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There's interest in putting the IMC-US website on the groogroo server, but
> > before saying "yes" I wanted to check with you all.  Personally, I
> > absolutely think we should do this -- in terms of bootstrapping our
> > infrastructure, hosting a website such as this will prove a _huge_ boon
> > for grantwriting for equipment, donors, etc.  The site won't go live for a
> > couple months yet, which should leave us time to get the additional DSL
> > lines up and running.
> >
> > The IMC-US group has its own tech team (so the additional work on our end
> > would be minimal).
> >
> > So what do folks think?
> >
> > --Sascha
> >
>
>