Re: [TUHS] bitsavers.org down?

[Toby Thain <toby@telegraphics.com.au>]

On 2020-01-18 4:04 PM, Adam Thornton wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 18, 2020, at 1:53 PM, Steve Nickolas <usotsuki@buric.co> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020, Adam Thornton wrote:
>>
>>> So…that’s not a lot of archive, so I’m guessing that it’s outbound bandwidth that will be the driving cost.  But even that…how popular is it _really_ ?
>>>
>>> It seems like, given the nature of the collection, it might not be hard to persuade one of the cloud providers into discounted rates for hosting, although…it’s so small that that might not work, because that little data, well, you’re not a customer big enough to have a Google or Amazon rep.
>>>
>>> I’ll put out some feelers.  Rough bandwidth data, if we can figure out some way to find it, would be good to have.
>>
>> What about renting an OVH server and slapping it on that?  I think the KimSufi 1 is 500 GB disk space - dunno if that's cheap enough.
> 
> 
> A possibly-stopgap-but-maybe-not-idiotic solution just occurred to me.
> 
> This isn’t exactly the sort of data that’s GOOD for hosting via Git, since it’s mostly-binary and mostly-read-only.
> 
> But checking it into a GitHub public repo until we were told to stop…or checking in some indexes, paying for some S3 buckets, and using Git Large File Support pointing at the buckets for the binary blobs…might not be the dumbest idea in the world.  I mean, GitHub is well-indexed, has a lot of incentive to maintain good backups, and probably isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

S3 already serves static content directly.

Anyone thinking about this problem should consider what you get in S3
that you'd otherwise have to replace in other ways.

--T

> 
> Adam
>