Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » question for the IT guys...
| question for the IT guys... [message #80448] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 12:59  |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Howdy.
I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound", has
gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying to
hide a greedy streak.
Jimmy
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80457 is a reply to message #80448] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 15:50  |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hehe, well the setup that runs this show is pretty simple and cheap. She's
a PIII 450MHz (or maybe 550 now?) with 128 meg of ram and I think an 8 gig
hdd (might be only 6.5... don't recall). I imagine it's got a 300 watt power
supply or so. I'd be surprised if average consumption was 100 watts.
It's running an APC UPS which the guys here funded as you may recall. I'm
running what is basically an exceptionally high end home router. It can handle
about 1500 pipes running through it, and I'm pretty sure it's just one user
to one pipe for NNTP or the web interface (unless maybe someone opens multiple
web windows). This place really doesn't get anything close to 1500 though.
We probably get 100-200 users log in over a day, and not all at once...
perhaps maybe 20 people at once. Bandwidth usage is low here because it's
all text based.
The PC running the show though has zero trouble keeping up. Yes, you do get
delays in pages coming back at times, however I can tell you that this is
a combination of the internet bandwidth / connection, as well as some of
the power saving settings I'm using which I believe power down the HDD and
such after no use for a period. If I'm at home, on the inside of the net
connection, and I click refresh, or click around posts, the response is pretty
much instant. The server responds noticably quicker than any other page anywhere
on the internet that i've seen, even on mega quick connections.
I would suggest, and I'm largely guessing, but with a site with say 3,000
daily visitors you would still get by very comfortably on any half decent
modern machine. 3,000 visitors means perhaps 1,000 as a max logged on at
any one time, and of course mostly people are reading, not requesting pages,
or even off making a coffee. You'd be very unlucky to get 100 simultaneous
page requests. Even if you did, if you run a gig of ram you'll have most
of the top pages already in the memory buffer ready to spit out on request.
Once again, to get by on the cheap, you could just use a decent (APC?) UPS
to keep it online.
Beyond that you need a fast enough net connection, and a router to protect
you and direct the traffic.
I also have a another machine preloaded ready to take over if something goes
wrong, and it's configured to do backups of the posts. Every few days I turn
it on and it copies the latest posts off the server. This way we only lose
a few days. Depending on the forum and how pro you wanted to be, you could
just leave a second machine running constantly, and your backup would stay
100% up to date. You can also get machines configured so that, should the
primary machine fail, the secondary machine takes over automatically so service
never stops. On the other hand with RAID do popular on motherboards these
days you may get by with just a couple of hdd's mirrored in the same machine.
You'd need to think about backups though.
For 3,000 people a day, at a guess, for a mostly text site with a touch of
graphics, I'd say $2000 would be minimum to get you at least one machine
setup and running doing the job, with maybe 1-2 hours UPS backup.
I'm saying that as my best guess though. Truth is my setup is very minimalist.
It doesn't take much grunt to keep this particular show on the road due to
relatively low readership and an almost exclusively text based content.
Cheers,
Kim.
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Howdy.
>
>I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>
>I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
has
>gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
>the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
to
>hide a greedy streak.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80460 is a reply to message #80457] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 16:00 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We all appreciate your efforts, Kim! And thanks for the info.
I feel somewhat supported in my suspicion that the fellow who started
Chowhound sold us down the river to a bunch of corporate hacks so as to
score the big bucks, plus a full time job touring the country and eating.
And now they're trying to squeeze profit out a user group who have largely
vanished and been replaced by a bunch of no-taste fools who argue endlessly
over which is better: Applebee's or Chilis?
He could have gotten plenty of money for hardware and power if he had asked
for it nicely. The whole thing stinks. As if anybody will ever make money
from a user-driven gossip/info site anyway...I thought we learned that
lesson several years ago...makes me sick....
Why is money so much more important than everything else? Why must every
little bit of beauty in the world be sullied by some fool's greed? I just
don't get it.
Sorry for the OT rant.
Jimmy
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45dcccc6$1@linux...
>
>
> Hehe, well the setup that runs this show is pretty simple and cheap. She's
> a PIII 450MHz (or maybe 550 now?) with 128 meg of ram and I think an 8 gig
> hdd (might be only 6.5... don't recall). I imagine it's got a 300 watt
power
> supply or so. I'd be surprised if average consumption was 100 watts.
>
> It's running an APC UPS which the guys here funded as you may recall. I'm
> running what is basically an exceptionally high end home router. It can
handle
> about 1500 pipes running through it, and I'm pretty sure it's just one
user
> to one pipe for NNTP or the web interface (unless maybe someone opens
multiple
> web windows). This place really doesn't get anything close to 1500 though.
> We probably get 100-200 users log in over a day, and not all at once...
> perhaps maybe 20 people at once. Bandwidth usage is low here because it's
> all text based.
>
> The PC running the show though has zero trouble keeping up. Yes, you do
get
> delays in pages coming back at times, however I can tell you that this is
> a combination of the internet bandwidth / connection, as well as some of
> the power saving settings I'm using which I believe power down the HDD and
> such after no use for a period. If I'm at home, on the inside of the net
> connection, and I click refresh, or click around posts, the response is
pretty
> much instant. The server responds noticably quicker than any other page
anywhere
> on the internet that i've seen, even on mega quick connections.
>
> I would suggest, and I'm largely guessing, but with a site with say 3,000
> daily visitors you would still get by very comfortably on any half decent
> modern machine. 3,000 visitors means perhaps 1,000 as a max logged on at
> any one time, and of course mostly people are reading, not requesting
pages,
> or even off making a coffee. You'd be very unlucky to get 100 simultaneous
> page requests. Even if you did, if you run a gig of ram you'll have most
> of the top pages already in the memory buffer ready to spit out on
request.
> Once again, to get by on the cheap, you could just use a decent (APC?) UPS
> to keep it online.
>
> Beyond that you need a fast enough net connection, and a router to protect
> you and direct the traffic.
>
> I also have a another machine preloaded ready to take over if something
goes
> wrong, and it's configured to do backups of the posts. Every few days I
turn
> it on and it copies the latest posts off the server. This way we only lose
> a few days. Depending on the forum and how pro you wanted to be, you could
> just leave a second machine running constantly, and your backup would stay
> 100% up to date. You can also get machines configured so that, should the
> primary machine fail, the secondary machine takes over automatically so
service
> never stops. On the other hand with RAID do popular on motherboards these
> days you may get by with just a couple of hdd's mirrored in the same
machine.
> You'd need to think about backups though.
>
> For 3,000 people a day, at a guess, for a mostly text site with a touch of
> graphics, I'd say $2000 would be minimum to get you at least one machine
> setup and running doing the job, with maybe 1-2 hours UPS backup.
>
> I'm saying that as my best guess though. Truth is my setup is very
minimalist.
> It doesn't take much grunt to keep this particular show on the road due to
> relatively low readership and an almost exclusively text based content.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.
>
> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Howdy.
> >
> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
> >
> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
> has
> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
> to
> >hide a greedy streak.
> >
> >Jimmy
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80467 is a reply to message #80460] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 17:49 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeh, it's not expensive. If you want to cover your costs, maybe even earn
a little, as you say, usually users are willing to donate if it's a good
site with a passionate user base. People have here for the UPS, and I've
had a couple of offers for ongoing monthly support for power/connection or
whatever, but it's really not expensive I don't think (and my internet is
now company funded). Worst case, if you're careful, you could always put
the odd unobtrusive ad up. Google allow some pretty neat little text only
adverts which you can throw at the side of the site to earn some cashola,
which are subject matched to your site. I wouldn't go this way, but if you
really wanted to squeeze some bucks out of it, it could be done carefully
without ruining the vibe and stuff too much I would think.
But like always, someone will come along with big bucks and go "Hey, we want
your idea (because we have lots of cash but no ideas of our own). Have a
pile of dough so we can milk your good thing dry"...
I'm suspicious that by the time the world works out that greed is not in
its own best interest it's going to be too late. Anyhow, am I still speaking?
;o)
Suffice to say that I took over this forum kinda so I knew that wouldn't
happen.
Cheers,
Kim.
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>We all appreciate your efforts, Kim! And thanks for the info.
>
>I feel somewhat supported in my suspicion that the fellow who started
>Chowhound sold us down the river to a bunch of corporate hacks so as to
>score the big bucks, plus a full time job touring the country and eating.
>And now they're trying to squeeze profit out a user group who have largely
>vanished and been replaced by a bunch of no-taste fools who argue endlessly
>over which is better: Applebee's or Chilis?
>
>He could have gotten plenty of money for hardware and power if he had asked
>for it nicely. The whole thing stinks. As if anybody will ever make money
>from a user-driven gossip/info site anyway...I thought we learned that
>lesson several years ago...makes me sick....
>
>Why is money so much more important than everything else? Why must every
>little bit of beauty in the world be sullied by some fool's greed? I just
>don't get it.
>
>Sorry for the OT rant.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45dcccc6$1@linux...
>>
>>
>> Hehe, well the setup that runs this show is pretty simple and cheap. She's
>> a PIII 450MHz (or maybe 550 now?) with 128 meg of ram and I think an 8
gig
>> hdd (might be only 6.5... don't recall). I imagine it's got a 300 watt
>power
>> supply or so. I'd be surprised if average consumption was 100 watts.
>>
>> It's running an APC UPS which the guys here funded as you may recall.
I'm
>> running what is basically an exceptionally high end home router. It can
>handle
>> about 1500 pipes running through it, and I'm pretty sure it's just one
>user
>> to one pipe for NNTP or the web interface (unless maybe someone opens
>multiple
>> web windows). This place really doesn't get anything close to 1500 though.
>> We probably get 100-200 users log in over a day, and not all at once...
>> perhaps maybe 20 people at once. Bandwidth usage is low here because it's
>> all text based.
>>
>> The PC running the show though has zero trouble keeping up. Yes, you do
>get
>> delays in pages coming back at times, however I can tell you that this
is
>> a combination of the internet bandwidth / connection, as well as some
of
>> the power saving settings I'm using which I believe power down the HDD
and
>> such after no use for a period. If I'm at home, on the inside of the net
>> connection, and I click refresh, or click around posts, the response is
>pretty
>> much instant. The server responds noticably quicker than any other page
>anywhere
>> on the internet that i've seen, even on mega quick connections.
>>
>> I would suggest, and I'm largely guessing, but with a site with say 3,000
>> daily visitors you would still get by very comfortably on any half decent
>> modern machine. 3,000 visitors means perhaps 1,000 as a max logged on
at
>> any one time, and of course mostly people are reading, not requesting
>pages,
>> or even off making a coffee. You'd be very unlucky to get 100 simultaneous
>> page requests. Even if you did, if you run a gig of ram you'll have most
>> of the top pages already in the memory buffer ready to spit out on
>request.
>> Once again, to get by on the cheap, you could just use a decent (APC?)
UPS
>> to keep it online.
>>
>> Beyond that you need a fast enough net connection, and a router to protect
>> you and direct the traffic.
>>
>> I also have a another machine preloaded ready to take over if something
>goes
>> wrong, and it's configured to do backups of the posts. Every few days
I
>turn
>> it on and it copies the latest posts off the server. This way we only
lose
>> a few days. Depending on the forum and how pro you wanted to be, you could
>> just leave a second machine running constantly, and your backup would
stay
>> 100% up to date. You can also get machines configured so that, should
the
>> primary machine fail, the secondary machine takes over automatically so
>service
>> never stops. On the other hand with RAID do popular on motherboards these
>> days you may get by with just a couple of hdd's mirrored in the same
>machine.
>> You'd need to think about backups though.
>>
>> For 3,000 people a day, at a guess, for a mostly text site with a touch
of
>> graphics, I'd say $2000 would be minimum to get you at least one machine
>> setup and running doing the job, with maybe 1-2 hours UPS backup.
>>
>> I'm saying that as my best guess though. Truth is my setup is very
>minimalist.
>> It doesn't take much grunt to keep this particular show on the road due
to
>> relatively low readership and an almost exclusively text based content.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>>
>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Howdy.
>> >
>> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>> >
>> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
>> has
>> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have
left
>> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
>> to
>> >hide a greedy streak.
>> >
>> >Jimmy
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80469 is a reply to message #80448] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 18:09 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously about
using these guys
www.slicehost.com
for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
you this much.
I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another linux
distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick),
but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price, it's
hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well subscribed
web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's literally
less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual hosting/bandwidth
was a real issue.
TCB
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Howdy.
>
>I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>
>I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
has
>gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
>the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
to
>hide a greedy streak.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80472 is a reply to message #80469] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 18:26 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From Twenty Bucks?!?!?
Strewth. That's cheap. Those are some sensational deals. Not sure how they're
making money. How can you even offer somebody 400GB of net bandwidth for
$70? Can I have that at my home please? ;o)
That's amazing...
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
about
>using these guys
>
>www.slicehost.com
>
>for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
>bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
>They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
>not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
>you this much.
>
>I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
linux
>distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick),
>but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>
>That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price, it's
>hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well subscribed
>web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's literally
>less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual hosting/bandwidth
>was a real issue.
>
>TCB
>
>"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Howdy.
>>
>>I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>>electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>>measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>>How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>>necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>>
>>I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
>has
>>gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>>absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
>>the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>>afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>>entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>>doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
>to
>>hide a greedy streak.
>>
>>Jimmy
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80474 is a reply to message #80472] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 19:10 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think it's mostly what I pointed out. Build your own servers, oversell the
space because most people won't use anywhere near their allotted share, so
you make 12 slices out of a server that could handle 4 if they were all at
full load. Let slices borrow from each other most of the time, and then balance
demanding slices across hardware when necessary. Bandwidth is cheap.
Anyway, I'm thinking about a $20 slice for me as a Debian playground for
a couple of uses.
TCB
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>From Twenty Bucks?!?!?
>
>Strewth. That's cheap. Those are some sensational deals. Not sure how they're
>making money. How can you even offer somebody 400GB of net bandwidth for
>$70? Can I have that at my home please? ;o)
>
>That's amazing...
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
>about
>>using these guys
>>
>>www.slicehost.com
>>
>>for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
>>bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
>>They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
>>not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
>>you this much.
>>
>>I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
>linux
>>distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick),
>>but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>>
>>That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
it's
>>hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
subscribed
>>web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's literally
>>less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual hosting/bandwidth
>>was a real issue.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>Howdy.
>>>
>>>I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>>>electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>>>measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>>>How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>>>necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>>>
>>>I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
>>has
>>>gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>>>absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
>>>the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>>>afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>>>entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>>>doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
>>to
>>>hide a greedy streak.
>>>
>>>Jimmy
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80478 is a reply to message #80474] |
Wed, 21 February 2007 21:28 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dude, with 400GB of internet bandwidth...
....I can stream a radio station at 32k to 12 million listeners!
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I think it's mostly what I pointed out. Build your own servers, oversell
the
>space because most people won't use anywhere near their allotted share,
so
>you make 12 slices out of a server that could handle 4 if they were all
at
>full load. Let slices borrow from each other most of the time, and then
balance
>demanding slices across hardware when necessary. Bandwidth is cheap.
>
>Anyway, I'm thinking about a $20 slice for me as a Debian playground for
>a couple of uses.
>
>TCB
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>From Twenty Bucks?!?!?
>>
>>Strewth. That's cheap. Those are some sensational deals. Not sure how they're
>>making money. How can you even offer somebody 400GB of net bandwidth for
>>$70? Can I have that at my home please? ;o)
>>
>>That's amazing...
>>
>>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
>>about
>>>using these guys
>>>
>>>www.slicehost.com
>>>
>>>for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
>>>bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
>>>They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
>>>not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
>>>you this much.
>>>
>>>I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
>>linux
>>>distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
>stick),
>>>but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>>>
>>>That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
>it's
>>>hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
>subscribed
>>>web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's
literally
>>>less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual hosting/bandwidth
>>>was a real issue.
>>>
>>>TCB
>>>
>>>"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>Howdy.
>>>>
>>>>I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>>>>electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>>>>measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>>>>How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>>>>necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>>>>
>>>>I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
>>>has
>>>>gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>>>>absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have
left
>>>>the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>>>>afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>>>>entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>>>>doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
>>>to
>>>>hide a greedy streak.
>>>>
>>>>Jimmy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80508 is a reply to message #80469] |
Thu, 22 February 2007 10:17 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I'm not philosophically opposed to the guy cashing in on his good
idea. My main problems are:
1. He lied to us, assuming that none of us knew enough about IT to know
better. He flat lied to us.
2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky.
3. It may have been his idea, but like any user forum, it is not his. It is
the sum of its many people-parts. Period. If it was just his idea, it would
have been nothing. It was the community that was of value, and now it's
gone.
I'm really pissed.
Jimmy
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45dced2f$1@linux...
>
> There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
about
> using these guys
>
> www.slicehost.com
>
> for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
> bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
> They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
> not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
> you this much.
>
> I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
linux
> distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick),
> but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>
> That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
it's
> hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
subscribed
> web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's
literally
> less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual
hosting/bandwidth
> was a real issue.
>
> TCB
>
> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Howdy.
> >
> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
> >
> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
> has
> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have left
> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
> to
> >hide a greedy streak.
> >
> >Jimmy
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80526 is a reply to message #80508] |
Thu, 22 February 2007 17:32 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jimmy,
">2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky."
Tell me what's wrong with the forum (in detail) and I and others can probably
help.
There are so many no/low cost options now that there's no reason for a good
community to suffer through a shitty forum.
Chuck
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Yeah, I'm not philosophically opposed to the guy cashing in on his good
>idea. My main problems are:
>
>1. He lied to us, assuming that none of us knew enough about IT to know
>better. He flat lied to us.
>
>2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky.
>
>3. It may have been his idea, but like any user forum, it is not his. It
is
>the sum of its many people-parts. Period. If it was just his idea, it would
>have been nothing. It was the community that was of value, and now it's
>gone.
>
>I'm really pissed.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45dced2f$1@linux...
>>
>> There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
>about
>> using these guys
>>
>> www.slicehost.com
>>
>> for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you 400GB
>> bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's reserved.
>> They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as you're
>> not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will promise
>> you this much.
>>
>> I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
>linux
>> distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
>stick),
>> but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>>
>> That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
>it's
>> hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
>subscribed
>> web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's
>literally
>> less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual
>hosting/bandwidth
>> was a real issue.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Howdy.
>> >
>> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
>> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup, anyway?
>> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
>> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>> >
>> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum, "Chowhound",
>> has
>> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet. They've
>> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have
left
>> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he couldn't
>> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it somehow
>> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or lying
>> to
>> >hide a greedy streak.
>> >
>> >Jimmy
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80536 is a reply to message #80526] |
Thu, 22 February 2007 18:11 |
uptown jimmy
Messages: 441
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chuck, you're a good fellow to offer help, but I don't know...
Basically, my complaints aren't about the newer format(s), but about the
social stuff. The newer format(s) are actually pretty cool.
It's the new corporate control of the site that is the problem. They have
done two nasty things (here comes another list):
1. They are censoring discussions at a frantic rate. Any post deviating even
slightly from accepted protocol is promptly deleted. I recently posted
requesting info on site hits before and after the transition, and it was
immediately deleted. No opportunity for discussion or debate. If some
fresh-faced newbie shows up and starts a new thread identical to one
finished two weeks ago, you can reply with the suggestion to use the
"search" function, but they delete it. I assume because they want more site
hits/advertising dollars. If I was to post right now about my suspicions
that the whole thing has gone to shit because of greed and corporate
bullshit, they would delete it, no matter how politely I phrase it. None of
this would have happened two years ago, not on your life. Never mind if I
suggested that the founder is lying about his being forced to sell the
site....
2. They have, through CNet's clout and marketing dollars, attracted
boatloads of folk who don't know good food from a steaming pile of dog shit.
And they have done so intentionally, of course. Eccentric, well-informed,
discriminating and even picky folk account for a very small portion of the
human population, after all, not nearly enough to pay fat salaries to
corporate big-wigs.
So, a site once defined by a signal-to-noise-ratio of 95% to 5% is now 50/50
at best, and sinking pretty quickly. And "they" have adopted a rabid
attitude towards preventing old-timers from politely maintaining the status
quo as it once existed. Mustn't alienate the new-comers by telling them,
however graciously, that, after all, Applebee's isn't the height of culinary
achievement.
Most of the old-timers have left as a result of all this nonsense. The
founder is busily trying to convince everybody that the site would have
collapsed without the sale, which I now believe to be self-serving bullshit.
I don't know how I could possibly rectify the problem. I have no idea where
all the old-timers are, even who they are. Some still post, if you word your
topics carefully and beg for them to crawl out of the wood-work, but things
have just gone to shit.
Oh, well. Many people are suffering throughout this be-nighted world. I
shouldn't take this all so seriously.
I still love this little corner of the web. I am a weirdo.
Jimmy
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:45de362a$1@linux...
>
> Jimmy,
>
> ">2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky."
>
> Tell me what's wrong with the forum (in detail) and I and others can
probably
> help.
>
> There are so many no/low cost options now that there's no reason for a
good
> community to suffer through a shitty forum.
>
> Chuck
>
> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Yeah, I'm not philosophically opposed to the guy cashing in on his good
> >idea. My main problems are:
> >
> >1. He lied to us, assuming that none of us knew enough about IT to know
> >better. He flat lied to us.
> >
> >2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky.
> >
> >3. It may have been his idea, but like any user forum, it is not his. It
> is
> >the sum of its many people-parts. Period. If it was just his idea, it
would
> >have been nothing. It was the community that was of value, and now it's
> >gone.
> >
> >I'm really pissed.
> >
> >Jimmy
> >
> >
> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45dced2f$1@linux...
> >>
> >> There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
> >about
> >> using these guys
> >>
> >> www.slicehost.com
> >>
> >> for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you
400GB
> >> bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's
reserved.
> >> They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as
you're
> >> not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will
promise
> >> you this much.
> >>
> >> I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
> >linux
> >> distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
> >stick),
> >> but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
> >>
> >> That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
> >it's
> >> hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
> >subscribed
> >> web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's
> >literally
> >> less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual
> >hosting/bandwidth
> >> was a real issue.
> >>
> >> TCB
> >>
> >> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Howdy.
> >> >
> >> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
> >> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance? You
> >> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup,
anyway?
> >> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power is
> >> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
> >> >
> >> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum,
"Chowhound",
> >> has
> >> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet.
They've
> >> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have
> left
> >> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he
couldn't
> >> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
> >> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it
somehow
> >> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or
lying
> >> to
> >> >hide a greedy streak.
> >> >
> >> >Jimmy
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: question for the IT guys... [message #80538 is a reply to message #80536] |
Thu, 22 February 2007 20:30 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Obviously these aren't technical issues, which Chuck (or maybe I) could help
out with. These are personal and ownership issues which can only be fixed
by the persons and owners finding a new place to life.
My suggestion? Get in touch with the people you like, reform as a yahoo or
other listserv, and the 'old timers' will be back again. You might even want
to admin the listserv and/or ng. It's not all that miserably complicated.
Think of it this way. Your favorite restaurant, with your favorite waiters
and chef and bartenders shut down. Now you have to find a new home. Hanging
around in the Applebee's that replaced it and complaining gets you nowhere,
even if the owner of the original place buggered off.
TCB
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Chuck, you're a good fellow to offer help, but I don't know...
>
>Basically, my complaints aren't about the newer format(s), but about the
>social stuff. The newer format(s) are actually pretty cool.
>
>It's the new corporate control of the site that is the problem. They have
>done two nasty things (here comes another list):
>
>1. They are censoring discussions at a frantic rate. Any post deviating
even
>slightly from accepted protocol is promptly deleted. I recently posted
>requesting info on site hits before and after the transition, and it was
>immediately deleted. No opportunity for discussion or debate. If some
>fresh-faced newbie shows up and starts a new thread identical to one
>finished two weeks ago, you can reply with the suggestion to use the
>"search" function, but they delete it. I assume because they want more site
>hits/advertising dollars. If I was to post right now about my suspicions
>that the whole thing has gone to shit because of greed and corporate
>bullshit, they would delete it, no matter how politely I phrase it. None
of
>this would have happened two years ago, not on your life. Never mind if
I
>suggested that the founder is lying about his being forced to sell the
>site....
>
>2. They have, through CNet's clout and marketing dollars, attracted
>boatloads of folk who don't know good food from a steaming pile of dog shit.
>And they have done so intentionally, of course. Eccentric, well-informed,
>discriminating and even picky folk account for a very small portion of the
>human population, after all, not nearly enough to pay fat salaries to
>corporate big-wigs.
>
>So, a site once defined by a signal-to-noise-ratio of 95% to 5% is now 50/50
>at best, and sinking pretty quickly. And "they" have adopted a rabid
>attitude towards preventing old-timers from politely maintaining the status
>quo as it once existed. Mustn't alienate the new-comers by telling them,
>however graciously, that, after all, Applebee's isn't the height of culinary
>achievement.
>
>Most of the old-timers have left as a result of all this nonsense. The
>founder is busily trying to convince everybody that the site would have
>collapsed without the sale, which I now believe to be self-serving bullshit.
>I don't know how I could possibly rectify the problem. I have no idea where
>all the old-timers are, even who they are. Some still post, if you word
your
>topics carefully and beg for them to crawl out of the wood-work, but things
>have just gone to shit.
>
>Oh, well. Many people are suffering throughout this be-nighted world. I
>shouldn't take this all so seriously.
>
>I still love this little corner of the web. I am a weirdo.
>
>Jimmy
>
>
>"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote in message news:45de362a$1@linux...
>>
>> Jimmy,
>>
>> ">2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky."
>>
>> Tell me what's wrong with the forum (in detail) and I and others can
>probably
>> help.
>>
>> There are so many no/low cost options now that there's no reason for a
>good
>> community to suffer through a shitty forum.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Yeah, I'm not philosophically opposed to the guy cashing in on his good
>> >idea. My main problems are:
>> >
>> >1. He lied to us, assuming that none of us knew enough about IT to know
>> >better. He flat lied to us.
>> >
>> >2. The forum was wonderful, and now it is bordering on sucky.
>> >
>> >3. It may have been his idea, but like any user forum, it is not his.
It
>> is
>> >the sum of its many people-parts. Period. If it was just his idea, it
>would
>> >have been nothing. It was the community that was of value, and now it's
>> >gone.
>> >
>> >I'm really pissed.
>> >
>> >Jimmy
>> >
>> >
>> >"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45dced2f$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> There's also the possibility of virtual hosting. I'm thinking seriously
>> >about
>> >> using these guys
>> >>
>> >> www.slicehost.com
>> >>
>> >> for hosting some projects for me and my band. $70 per month gets you
>400GB
>> >> bandwidth, 1GB RAM, 40GB disk space on a shared server, and it's
>reserved.
>> >> They'll actually let you use other resources on the host as long as
>you're
>> >> not sucking resources from someone else's account, but they will
>promise
>> >> you this much.
>> >>
>> >> I happened upon them because they are Debian friendly (learning another
>> >linux
>> >> distro is about as interesting to me as a poke in the eye with a sharp
>> >stick),
>> >> but I'm sure there are similar options for other OS's.
>> >>
>> >> That said, if the guy you're talking about cashed out at a good price,
>> >it's
>> >> hard to blame him. My guess is if he's been running a successful, well
>> >subscribed
>> >> web community for a long time if you average out his hourly wage it's
>> >literally
>> >> less than five dollars per hour. But I'd be surprised if the actual
>> >hosting/bandwidth
>> >> was a real issue.
>> >>
>> >> TCB
>> >>
>> >> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >Howdy.
>> >> >
>> >> >I was wondering about user forums and hit counts and hardware and
>> >> >electricity. How many users can Kim's setup handle, for instance?
You
>> >> >measure that sort of thing in "hits", right? What is Kim's setup,
>anyway?
>> >> >How much power does it use per month? How much hardware and power
is
>> >> >necessary for a site that attracts, say, 3,000 people? 10,000? 50,000?
>> >> >
>> >> >I was wondering these things because a beloved user forum,
>"Chowhound",
>> >> has
>> >> >gone completely to shit since being sold by the founder to CNet.
>They've
>> >> >absolutely wrecked the thing, and many of the old-school Hounds have
>> left
>> >> >the building, so to speak. The founder claims adamantly that he
>couldn't
>> >> >afford to keep the site up and running, that it was going to go away
>> >> >entirely if he didn't get deep pockets in on the action, but it
>somehow
>> >> >doesn't add up for me. I was wondering if he's telling the truth or
>lying
>> >> to
>> >> >hide a greedy streak.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jimmy
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 09 23:06:20 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05081 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
