Historically, grex has not allowed graphic (pictures, multimedia) files because they are large, so transfering them onto and off of grex would use up too much of the available bandwidth of our connection to the Internet. Originally, grex's connection to the Internet was a modem, just as fast as any one else's modem. Later, we upgraded to ISDN, and now we are on a DSL connection. Still, our current connection to the Internet is little better than what is available in many people's homes in the United States. Note that the Internet connection is used for all Internet traffic on grex, both in and out: mail, ftp, telnet, www, etc. It is shared by all of the users on grex.37 responses total.
Some responses from the previous item, on the current subject: --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 4 (24) Mary Remmers (mary) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (07:20) 2 lines: By increasing disk space over what's allowed now, will we be encouraging storage of graphic files? --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 19 (24) Jim Daloonik (naftee) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (13:54) 3 lines: What, exactly, is wrong with the storage of graphics? Certainly it can't be bandwidth, because with the faster NextGreX machine, it should take that in stride, no? --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 21 (24) Mary Remmers (mary) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (14:45) 9 lines: If we increased the quotas enough to allow folks to put web-accessible pictures on Grex, would that traffic noticeably slow most user's sessions? I'm *really* hoping that Grex can be significantly faster on the new machine. Unless Grex is faster I expect fewer and fewer users will stick around long enough to get hooked. Don't know if that helps but it is where my concerns rest. --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 22 (24) Dan Cross (cross) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (15:07) 1 lines: Regarding #20; That's never been measured, and is only a conjecture. --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 24 (24) David Brodbeck (gull) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (16:05) 2 lines: I think the ban on graphics was also intended to keep people from putting up porno sites. The target audience for ASCII porn is pretty small. ---------------------------------------------
I see that I omitted _my_ response on the subject: --------------------------------------------- Item #62: Disk Quotas on the New Grex Machine Response 20 (24) Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Tue, Dec 30, 2003 (14:31) 3 lines: Yes, it's bandwidth, the number of bits that can pass in and out on the network connection. A faster CPU, or a bigger disk, does not improve the network bandwidth. ---------------------------------------------
In response to #20 in item 62: Of course a faster CPU doesn't increase network bandwidth. However, a faster CPU would mean less time for the host to spend accessing the file, which in turn leads to a faster access of the image. Besides, on average, the transfer of mail to and from the system would eat more bandwidth than the transfer of images, guaranteed. Besides, no one ever payed any attention to the "no image" rule.
The graphics file that I had posted was 8K (a small gif of myself). I access sites that are much larger than this all the time. My gif was not even inline.
Grex's ban on graphics was because of disk space considerations as well as network bandwidth. Back in the early days, there wasn't much disk space around here. There has been discussion of porn from time to time over the years. Anyone could host a porn site from Grex anyway, by posting their graphics elsewhere and linking to them from here. Anyone can have any sort of graphics available on their Grex home page if they can link pictures from another site on the Internet. They just can't use up a lot of Grex's very limited bandwidth with graphics. I like the ban on graphics (and other multimedia). Grex is already the slowest Internet site I regularly use. I don't see there being any likelihood of gaining for Grex users, overall, by allowing user graphics to be loaded here. There are *so* many other options in the world these days.
But is the proposed increase in a user's disk space enough to encourage graphics?
Yes, I'd say it is. Isn't the limit 100K as of now? A reasonable viewable picture is about 60K. What else are you going to use 2 MB of space for?
The current limit is one megabyte.
re 3:
The limiting factor in accessing images on Grex isn't the time it takes
Grex's computer to access the file, but rather the amount of data that can
pass over Grex's network connection, the link between the router on Grex's
ethernet and Grex's ISP. Time taken for the data to go over the network is
what causes accessing stuff on Grex to be slow for the end users.
Grex's DSL connection is really slow by modern standards, although it seemed
like a nice improvement when it was installed three or four years ago. The
economical way to multiply that speed by about 300 or so would be to stick
Grex in a colocation facility, but the ban on graphics probably shohuldn't
be lifted before that happens.
I keep forgetting: What is the speed of our current DSL connection?
Regarding #9; That's the conjecture I was referring to that's never really been tested.
A full-page image is 50K (in color). A small one is much less.
Some recent information: Program started at Sun-28-Dec-2003 00:57 local time. Analysed requests from Sun-21-Dec-2003 01:03 to Sun-28-Dec-2003 00:56 (7.0 days). Total completed requests: 44 274 Total failed requests: 22 249 Total redirected requests: 1 751 Average requests per day: 9 759 Number of distinct files requested: 2 792 Number of distinct hosts served: 7 441 Corrupt logfile entries: 41 Total bytes transferred: 312 148 721 Average bytes transferred per day: 44 619 233
re 9 But certainly, isn't most of what makes the current GreX box relatively slow it's consistantly high load averages, and not necessarily its network connection? Therefore, ignoring bandwidth considerations, the faster computer would be able to read the graphics file faster, ergo, less time for the process to be in the queue.
Load average isn't often a problem. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gelinas/stuff/House/102Burton-FrontView.jpg is 454799 bytes, almost a half-meg, all by itself.
WOW GELINAS you have a BA in ANCIENT and Biblical Studies? I didn't know that.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Here's a concrete proposal: *IF* we want to experiment with image files, we should set up a separate partition in which each user is automatically given a directory linked to their home directory. That partition should have firm quotas, and be made web-accessible or not at the system level, though users could retain privacy by making their image directories or files non-world-readable. Images would be allowed, up to the individual limits enforced by the quota on the image partition (presumably something less than the home directory quota), and images would be allowed ONLY in the image directory. If we set it up this way, we'd continue to enforce image file rules in home directories the way we have, except we'd simply move them to the user's image directory rather than deleting, up to the limit. We'd also have the option of turning on and off web-accessibility of image directories all at once, so we'd have a means to both measure and control bandwidth usage for images. It would be some work up front to set this up, but the directory and links could be generated by newuser, information about the system and its probationary status could be provided easily, and (IIRC) partition level-quotas are available so that would be simple to implement, and allowing/disallowing webserver access to the partition would also be straightforward to implement. Am I missing anything?
I was posting images at geocities until they decided to stop allowing ftp upload to free accounts. What other free websites allow ftp upload? Geocities requires a graphical browser for upload (meaning you need an ISP, or to go to the library any time you want to upload an image to use with your grex website). I like having my website at grex because I can edit the index.htm file online instead of having to download, edit, and upload it. Geocities at least also lets you do that.
re 17 I mentioned above that hardly anyone follows the "no images" rule. I didn't know about it until a couple months ago. Despite all this, there is still no evidence to show GreX has become another "tripod" or free web hosting site. GreX is slow because of the consistently high load averages, NOT the bandwidth.
Re: #20 tripod.com was allowing ftp last time I checkeed, which was about 2 months ago. . (checked*)
I like the idea of continuing the no-images rule on Grex. Many of us know about the rule, and most of us follow it. I'm mostly concerned with the speed-of-use issues, so the file limit would seem most important in uploading and downloading, and not in static storage that was only accessed in small sized chunks.
Many/most of the online forums I follow don't have local storage... you have to host it somewhere and the bbs system allows direct linking.
re 23 Actually, most of us don't. You're thinking of the people who have regularily posted on the GreX BBS for over three years.
Hmm... You didn't read the information you were given when you ran newuser,
naftee? You should take a look at the grex-limits page mentioned in the motd.
Or just enter
!grex-limits
at the nearest prompt.
re 26 I ran newuser years ago. Even if I did read it, I certainly can't remember. I also ran into that rule on GreX party several months ago. It was recounted to me by remmers. Anyhow, I'll try not to bump into the nearest prompt :-0 .
Pointers to those bits of text from newuser are now in the motd.
Thanks remmers!
(And they've been there for a few weeks.)
Thanks, remmers!
A little late, but still important point. I accidentally killed grex years ago when a text file in my web area got posted to a high profile place and everyone flocked here to check it out. Therefore that is a real danger. I don't know how many times that sort of thing has happened before. At least once. The policy against no graphics also went like this. Grex prefers not to censor things based on content. If grex allows graphics, then someone can set up a porn site here of questionable legality and we have no leg to stand on if we need/want to take it down until after the board has gone to jail for hosting something where the question went bad rather than good. If there is a no graphics policy then we have every right to take it down. Therefore no graphics allowed policy.
How could that possibly be anything BUT censoring on content and ALSO censoring on having the same format as censored content?!
re 32 What! Where's the text file ?!
I took the text file away. Let me try with a more specific example. Someone comes here and opens a porn site bacause we allow graphics. Some people look at the site and bring up in coop that all the models look very young. Grex would be required by law to censor such content. If we don't, then the board goes to jail. If we do, and it turns out that the site has legal documents certifiying that all models are at least 5259601 minutes old, then we might be liable to a civil suit because we violated our own policy without any sort of justification. In that light it is pretty obvious that the only safe course is to not allow graphics regardless of content. With this setup we can still meet our mission. The system will still be usable. Our exposure to danger is minimized.
What was the text in the text file dealing with ? Was it a hacker review ?
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: