Thread

1. Re: PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?

   Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> — 2003-01-13T15:47:59Z

   
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] 
   > Sent: 13 January 2003 15:42
   > To: Dave Page
   > Cc: Ross J. Reedstrom; Dan Langille; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
   > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
   > 
   > 
   > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   > >
   > > Total Hits 1339547
   > > Total Files 1064536
   > > Total Pages 324346
   > > Total Visits 58178
   > > Total KBytes 2712883
   > >
   > > In other words, 2.7Gb in 8/9 days.
   > >
   > > I'm not sure I'd call that noise :-)
   > 
   > It's irrelevant.  The portal and idocs aren't being mirrored 
   > and the question was about mirrors.
   
   It's not irrelevant. The original question was a complaint about the ads
   and why we have them - this shows the amount of traffic we get for a
   small portion of the site which can give some idea how busy other bits
   of the sites might get.
   
   Regards, Dave.
   
   

2. Re: PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?

   Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> — 2003-01-13T16:00:37Z

   On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 10:47, Dave Page wrote:
   > 
   > 
   > > -----Original Message-----
   > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev@michvhf.com] 
   > > Sent: 13 January 2003 15:42
   > > To: Dave Page
   > > Cc: Ross J. Reedstrom; Dan Langille; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
   > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?
   > > 
   > > 
   > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Total Hits 1339547
   > > > Total Files 1064536
   > > > Total Pages 324346
   > > > Total Visits 58178
   > > > Total KBytes 2712883
   > > >
   > > > In other words, 2.7Gb in 8/9 days.
   > > >
   > > > I'm not sure I'd call that noise :-)
   > > 
   > > It's irrelevant.  The portal and idocs aren't being mirrored 
   > > and the question was about mirrors.
   > 
   > It's not irrelevant. The original question was a complaint about the ads
   > and why we have them - this shows the amount of traffic we get for a
   > small portion of the site which can give some idea how busy other bits
   > of the sites might get.
   > 
   
   Perhaps this means we need to put more focus in finding ways to get
   other parts of the site mirrored.
   
   Robert Treat
   
   
   
   

3. Re: PostgreSQL site, put up or shut up?

   Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2003-01-13T16:01:08Z

   On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   
   > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Total Hits 1339547
   > > > Total Files 1064536
   > > > Total Pages 324346
   > > > Total Visits 58178
   > > > Total KBytes 2712883
   > > >
   > > > In other words, 2.7Gb in 8/9 days.
   > > >
   > > > I'm not sure I'd call that noise :-)
   > >
   > > It's irrelevant.  The portal and idocs aren't being mirrored
   > > and the question was about mirrors.
   >
   > It's not irrelevant. The original question was a complaint about the ads
   > and why we have them - this shows the amount of traffic we get for a
   > small portion of the site which can give some idea how busy other bits
   > of the sites might get.
   
   Go back and reread the end of it.  The first part was about the ads,
   the second was about mirrors.  As far as your numbers go, wait a few
   months and look again.  Any time there's a major change it'll get busy
   and then settle out.  Combine that with everyone talking about it and
   you'll have even more traffic as folks get curious and go look.
   
   Vince.
   -- 
    Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond!  http://www.pop4.net/
      http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
            Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.