On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 14:11 -0800, Jack Bailey wrote: > Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: > > > It's not a matter of voting... it's a matter of paying for the ftp server > > bandwidth. Using bittorrent you pay for the transfer by uploading a bit > > yourself, not to mention that many volunteers (like me) leave their > > bittorrents clients up and running long after they're done downloading > > (I've already uploaded about 35 DVD's worth). > > > What's the difference between 4 CDs and 1 DVD split into 4 chunks? > Nothing. If you want to make a case for distributing costs, then yank > the CDs and make them only available as torrents as well. > umm ... we are already distributing the CD ... if/when we distribute the DVD, that is, of course, that is an additional doubling of the size. The major issue with the DVD is still it's size. At > 2gb (x12 arches) it is a problem to all but FTP and apache that has been given LFS support. So, Jack, are you writing the check to do (2.2gb/DVD)x(12 DVDS)x(100 mirrors)= 2640 GB = 2.64 TB just to get the DVDs to the mirrors. Also we are going to have a CentOS5 and CentOS6 probably before we get rid of centos-2 ... and there will be 4 arches (OR 11TB) just to transfer the DVDs to the mirrors them ... and it makes 26.4GBx4=105gb of mirror space just for DVDs .... I'm not sure you have completely though out the implications of your simple suggestion. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060322/3110e54a/attachment-0005.sig>