[ZWeb] DISCUSS: Moving downloads to SourceForge's download manager

[Ausum Studio]

If the main problem is bandwith and Zope has a large users base, many of
them trust people, I propose transparent download mirrors, meaning that in a
regular download procedure, the user would download from Zope.org but the
file may arrive from any mirror, which at its time would only accept
requests only from Zope.org
OTOH, when a user uploads a product it would be automatically propagated to
all available mirrors, transparently.


Just my two cents :)



Ausum


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Everitt" <paul@eurozope.org>
To: "Zope.org Mailinglist" <zope-web@zope.org>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: [ZWeb] DISCUSS: Moving downloads to SourceForge's download manager


>
> I believe this subject came up a couple of weeks ago but I can't find
> it in the archives.
>
> Sidnei and I were just discussing the web stats for zope.org.  He
> noticed that around 50% of the bytes transfered were from two things:
> Zope distributions and the PDF of the Zope book (the latter is around
> 9%).
>
> He and I thought it would be good to revisit the proposal of moving
> these items into SourceForge's download manager.  Here are some pros
> and cons:
>
> Pros
>
> 1) It's good for our customers.  The downloads will be a lot faster,
> especially in different regions of the world.
>
> 2) It has better uptime (particularly with different systems around the
> world).
>
> 3) It removes stress from an overstressed situation with zope.org.  I
> think we all realize that the more we remove from zope.org's plate the
> better chance of success.
>
> 4) We will actually get numbers that show how often Zope is being
> downloaded.  Hallelujah!
>
> 5) We *might* attract some attention by being on the SourceForge
> activity percentile radar.
>
> 6) The current download pages on zope.org are less friendly, and some
> (maybe not many) people will be familiar with the sourceforge interface.
>
> 7) The bandwidth costs would go down a LOT (50%), particularly during
> spikes (e.g. when a new version of Zope is released).
>
> Cons
>
> 1) It's a transition and transitions have costs and disruptions.
>
> 2) The new interface might be harder for posting updates.  Though I
> doubt it, as the current system is one thousand percent brain damaged.
>
> 3) There might be changes with nzo.  (On this, I don't think there's
> any *finished* work to significantly improve the way packages are
> managed.)
>
> 4) Some people might think it looks bad for Zope to not serve up its
> own downloads.
>
> Sidnei and I both view this as more pro than con, and are willing to do
> the work to investigate the feasibility of this.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-web maillist  -  Zope-web@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web
>