Jules wrote....
Out of curiosity (and to the list in case others are
interested), do you
have an estimate for the yearly cost of providing
classiccmp.org and all
the services it provides?
No, actually I don't :)
I gather you've got the ISP already, so presumably
the infrastructure
doesn't come into it - and likely the same with things like backup
hardware (but not media) etc. as they'll already be in place for other
non-classiccmp services.
All correct.
I think what I'm asking is, how much of
"your" money do you put into it
per year in order to provide the mailing list, hosting for those of us who
have data on the classiccmp server(s) etc.?
Time: I put in a lot, the moderators
(to whom you can credit cctech still
existing) put in a lot, and the web developer for the new
classiccmp.org
website has been putting in tons of work. The development website really
looks awesome. Hopefully I can share the url with the public before too long
:) But I think all of us consider it a labor of love and this doesn't count
as a "cost".
Hardware: Currently the
Classiccmp.org server is a single 1U box sitting in
our racks. Intel Celeron 2ghz, 1gb ram, 3ware/escalade raid 0/1 controller,
and two PATA 160gb drives mirrored (160gb usable). FreeBSD, apache2, mysql,
htdig, mailman, mod_watch, perl5, php4, phpmyadmin, and proftpd to name the
major packages loaded. The main functions of the server are the mailing
list, the classiccmp website, and all the classic computer related websites
that I offer to host for free. I don't view this as a "cost" either, because
whenever the hardware needs an upgrade I post it to the list and people
donate (usually via paypal, sometimes via check) to cover the cost of the
hardware upgrades. I think the last upgrade I put in a chunk of my own cash
but I honestly don't recall for sure, that part is not something I feel the
need to track in any case. Speaking of which... the time is rapidly
approaching where something needs to be done about upgrading the box. The
real problem is just disk space is getting quite tight. One could argue that
all we need to do is replace the two drives with big ones (terabyte each
maybe, or 1/2 terabyte each). That may be the route to go. But there's
another possibility I was thinking too that sets off a cascade of upgrade
requirements. It'd be nice if the OS was mirrored and on two totally
separate drives from the data (which would need to be raid5). The whole
reason for this is so that in the future we could easily add more space
WITHOUT taking up a ton of my time to reinstall the OS too. If the OS was
mirrored for protection and independent of the raid set for drives, we could
just add more drives when needs dictate and it would be a trivial thing with
little or no downtime. The problem is, the current 1U case won't hold more
than 2 drives total. So going this route would mean replacing the case AND
the raid controller (the two most expensive parts). Perhaps a 2U case that
has six exposed hot swap drives. The current raid controller only supports 2
drives, and only raid 0 or raid 1. If I had my druthers I'd prefer off the
shelf generic parts rather than a fully integrated (but proprietary) box
like a dell. I like being able to use replacement parts in an emergency that
I already have on hand. But, I didn't mean to broach this topic here, that's
for discussion another day.
Bandwidth: HERE is the spot where money actually leaves my pocket - sort of.
The
classiccmp.org server actually uses a pretty substantial amount of
bandwidth for a single webserver/mailinglist machine (more than many of my
commercial service webservers). Bitsavers accounts for a chunk, but so do
some of the other sites on it (some sometimes more than bitsavers) like
transputer, calcmuseum, rainbow, trs80, cpm, dunfield, tellason, acornia,
swtpc.com,
retroarchive.org, wang220, sol20, etc. Many of these sites are
similar to bitsavers in that not only do they have html content, they also
have substantial documentation sections of manuals, pdf's, disk images, etc.
In addition to end-user bitsaver file downloads, all the other bitsavers
repositories are mirrors from the one on classiccmp. I'm not complaining at
all folks, just stating the usage. Here's a datapoint for you.... last night
bitsavers.org hit 80mbps (80 megaBITS per second). That's unusual though. I
would say classiccmp as a whole tends to sit between 5mbps and 12mbps on
average. 10mbps of symetric bandwidth is not cheap! Do not confuse this with
10mbps of asymetric bandwidth like you get on a home cable or DSL connection
for $50/month. As soon as you start talking symetric bandwidth (as an
ISP/webhosting/colocation company I have to have symetric bandwidth), you
are talking real money (easily a factor of 10 times more expensive). So if I
already have lots of bandwidth here, how does classiccmp cost anything...
well, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. My bandwidth costs are not
pure metered. I pay for a set amount. There's a fairly significant cushion
above that that my upstream folks will ignore for short periods of time.
Above that, and I get an extra bill. The overage bandwidth is more expensive
than the "prepaid" bandwidth. As a result it's in my best interest to modify
my prepaid bandwidth level very carefully. I raise the prepaid bandwidth as
my access/colocation/webhosting business grows. This means that my bandwidth
costs have a "stairstep" look on a graph. When I raise it, I raise it more
than I currently need to cover near term growth and spikes. So for
example... if I have just upgraded my bandwidth due to growth, I have gobs
more than I need and classiccmp doesn't really cost me anything extra. As I
grow and get closer to the "next step", yeah, it definitely costs money
because it's using bandwidth I could be using elsewhere. But then the next
step comes and I have more than I need and it's not a factor. So it's a VERY
hard thing to quantify exactly what it costs. The "stairsteps" occur fairly
frequently. Classiccmp often makes me go to the next stair before I would
normally have to. Again, I'm not complaining :)
[is there just "a"
classiccmp.org server, or
is it all spread across
several machines?]
See above.... one machine.
Jay