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

[Sascha Meinrath]

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

> Sascha, if you really honestly think that this is the only option for
> hosting US-IMC and the US-IMC tech team agrees and there is some
> monetary input from the service then I'm ok with it.

I think there are other options, but not any that are as good (I know,
it's sad, but Indymedia's infrastructure makes our national power grid
look state-of-the-art).  I'll check with the IMC-US-Tech team and see what
they think.  But I think that by the time we're good to go live, the
UCIMC's server will be in _much_ more stable straights than it is now.

> I'm still very concerned about the bandwidth of a national scope site
> vs local sites. A small percentage of 200,000,000 people is still much
> more than an order of magnitude larger percentage of 100,000
> people. But I guess we'll just see.

Yes, but a small percentage of 200,000,000 people is also _a lot_ more
folks who'd be willing to pitch in with donations to keep the website up.
The global Indymedia site gets roughly 50,000 hits a day -- it might be
good to get some usage stats from their tech team so we know what the
maximum stress would be for our system.

> I'm also concerned about having all the eggs in one fragile basket. My
> house isn't neccessarily the best place to house the national
> revolution against corporate dominance.

Yeah -- if we house IMC-US, I think we'll want to mirror things too.  It's
something that we've talked about for quite some time, but maybe this is
the imputus for doing it -- I'm sure that we will find another IMC that
would be willing to be our backup.

> But if this really is an issue of us or nothing then of course I'm
> happy to help the cause. I just want to make sure this will really
> help the cause and I'm concerned that it won't.
>
> I guess I know what I'll be working on for the next three months. Whee.

Think of it as a first step to something grand.  I really think that we
can use this as a building block for building a much better community
resource.  But even at worst, we'd just have to move things over once
development is done.

--Sascha


> Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>