From general-return-1354-apmail-lucene-general-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Tue May 26 13:50:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 29896 invoked from network); 26 May 2009 13:50:33 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 May 2009 13:50:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 13827 invoked by uid 500); 26 May 2009 13:50:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-general-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 13762 invoked by uid 500); 26 May 2009 13:50:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 13752 invoked by uid 99); 26 May 2009 13:50:45 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:50:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of markrmiller@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.167 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.167] (HELO mail-gx0-f167.google.com) (209.85.217.167) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:50:33 +0000 Received: by gxk11 with SMTP id 11so6728500gxk.5 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 06:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KYP4I0237EejPqMAjvEPYH2+L5bL5a/uACPO0SYYP9Q=; b=rTMVxkmPQJotywv6wgHSS8RAC4wzn0W5AsoDDdA0h1wPhJbM6F3y8xyPBYY+7GAg4m Q5yhakV38Bg8dOQJ7oUGNwnYKipXTDxHkYKgwVcV4xmKMR9nLVx7R4f0sOiXQxWm/ICw 9hwy43sFCfeDRyq9fvYCrLl170jjiNEJvKcYg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ZqxLkiU2225Wj6CurIDsj7aThLlfkITA6xTY62p2TyS2SeVx3PtohWB1W8zhPbvunx +7vzQrW55zNI18KKy0SMFD7UE3lN2LsxSvjsUfURCFS3kBqfs3UNnhmuFIs97ypvHHsw f7Z+G8NE7dMcBhr75u4Nltq97+aW4QfziHto0= Received: by 10.90.106.3 with SMTP id e3mr7398296agc.53.1243345811845; Tue, 26 May 2009 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.120? (ool-44c639d9.dyn.optonline.net [68.198.57.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 17sm11340752agd.66.2009.05.26.06.50.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 26 May 2009 06:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A1BF393.3010605@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:50:11 -0400 From: Mark Miller User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: general@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Open Relevance Infrastucture Request References: <1E9B66F4-4532-4ED3-BE72-B5DDE0751484@apache.org> <07322D83-9F50-455F-8DD1-0774E5FB1981@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <07322D83-9F50-455F-8DD1-0774E5FB1981@apache.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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. 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