On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:16:26 -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane
<greg@turnstep.com> wrote:
>
> > So far, I've had one person donate $10 ... in order to put a dedicated
> > server onto the network, I'd need alot more of those
Then perhaps a different approach needs to be taken?
> FWIW, I've been more than willing to put my money where my mouth is,
> but as long as we have banner ads all over out site, I'm not willing
> to provide money. I seem to recall that people offered to offset the
> costs of the banner ads earlier, but the discusion never got anywhere,
> mostly because nobody could produce the amount that the banner ads
> brought in.
I use Adblock for FireFox, and as a Gen Xer I don't see them anyway ;-)
> As far as suggestions, why not all chip in and get a nice dedicated server
> in a centralized place (e.g. Washington DC), get it up and running,
> and migrate things over one by one.
This was my thought initially, and servers themselves are actually
quite cheap (at ~$99 each) - that is why I asked about bandwidth
usage, as I believe this would be the cost factor.
For example, Server Beach (www.serverbeach.com) gives you a dedicated
machine for $99 monthly, and despite them being single processor
machines, we could have a dedicated webserver, dedicated database
server, and dedicated ftp/mail/whatever for ~$300...
I'm getting dual-xeons at aPlus.net for $200 or so, but I don't know
if PostgreSQL would need that kind of hardware if we could have
several servers.
Thoughts? Discuss. ;-)
