lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Open Relevance Infrastucture Request
Date Tue, 26 May 2009 14:32:13 GMT
I wonder if a P2P network would be an option at all? I doubt that P2P
is feasible for 100s of GB but we might get peers with bigger pipes
supporting the ASF.
Providing a Bittorrent download could work as soon as it is boostrapped.

simon

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
>> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even so, people with really big pipes may be interested in larger
>>>> collections.  Typically, when others have done this kind of thing, they
>>>> actually send out hard drives containing the data.  We are not proposing
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another option is to ask the board for funding for us to use Amazon.  I
>>>> don't particularly like this approach b/c it is not obvious to me how one
>>>> would cap the cost.
>>
>> You can cap the cost by limiting how much data you store right? You can
>> use RequesterPayBuckets
>> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/index.html?RequesterPaysBuckets.html to
>> move the cost onto the users who want the data. Per user, it would still be
>> fairly cheap. You get the added bonus of other S3 services, like being able
>> to send a device back and forth to import/export on site. You would just pay
>> for storage and transferring the data in - both cap-able by limiting the
>> amount of data you put in it.
>>
>
> One of the goals is to make the data available for free, so I don't think
> this would work.  Currently, one can get the TREC data for a nominal fee as
> well.
>
>
>> Not a recommendation or anything (its more convenient to not charge the
>> downloaders), but I think you could technically cap the costs associated
>> with putting it on S3.
>>
>> --
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message