Historic:Synced servers - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Synced servers to Historic:Synced servers

2024-12-04T05:20:02Z

Admin moved page Synced servers to Historic:Synced servers

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:20, 4 December 2024
(No difference)

Sir Finkus: Protected "Synced servers" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2016-09-27T20:52:57Z

Protected "Synced servers" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:52, 27 September 2016
(No difference)

Sir Finkus at 20:52, 27 September 2016

2016-09-27T20:52:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 27 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{archival}}
	Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because the number of such servers would be substantially smaller that the number of users.		Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because the number of such servers would be substantially smaller that the number of users.

Mfnickster: /* Comments */

2014-02-09T20:24:49Z

Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 9 February 2014
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Yes, it is similar, but we would need much more than Usenet, like safe user base and moderation. And it all would need to be tunneled through corporate firewalls, which often allow only web traffic.		Yes, it is similar, but we would need much more than Usenet, like safe user base and moderation. And it all would need to be tunneled through corporate firewalls, which often allow only web traffic.

	:USENET was a great way to distribute postings, but it had the flaw that every USENET provider had to carry copies of all the messages for all hosted groups, leading to a lot of redundancy and a huge burden on syncing updates every day. If I were doing USENET today, I'd have designated "home" servers for each group, with all other servers caching updates for subscribers. [[User:Mfnickster\|Mfnickster]] ([[User talk:Mfnickster\|talk]])		:USENET was a great way to distribute postings, but it had the flaw that every USENET provider had to carry copies of all the messages for all hosted groups, leading to a lot of redundancy and a huge bandwidth burden syncing updates every day. If I were doing USENET today, I'd have designated "home" servers for each group, with all other servers caching updates for subscribers. [[User:Mfnickster\|Mfnickster]] ([[User talk:Mfnickster\|talk]])

Mfnickster: /* Comments */

2014-02-09T20:24:21Z

Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:24, 9 February 2014
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Yes, it is similar, but we would need much more than Usenet, like safe user base and moderation. And it all would need to be tunneled through corporate firewalls, which often allow only web traffic.		Yes, it is similar, but we would need much more than Usenet, like safe user base and moderation. And it all would need to be tunneled through corporate firewalls, which often allow only web traffic.

			:USENET was a great way to distribute postings, but it had the flaw that every USENET provider had to carry copies of all the messages for all hosted groups, leading to a lot of redundancy and a huge burden on syncing updates every day. If I were doing USENET today, I'd have designated "home" servers for each group, with all other servers caching updates for subscribers. [[User:Mfnickster\|Mfnickster]] ([[User talk:Mfnickster\|talk]])

Art at 06:26, 8 February 2014

2014-02-08T06:26:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:26, 8 February 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.		Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.

			== Comments ==
	I'm no programmer, but isn't this how USENET worked?		I'm no programmer, but isn't this how USENET worked?

			Yes, it is similar, but we would need much more than Usenet, like safe user base and moderation. And it all would need to be tunneled through corporate firewalls, which often allow only web traffic.

Carguy: added USENET question

2014-02-08T05:10:20Z

added USENET question

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 8 February 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.		Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.

			I'm no programmer, but isn't this how USENET worked?

Art at 15:54, 7 February 2014

2014-02-07T15:54:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 7 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because the number of such servers would be substantially smaller that the number of users.		Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because the number of such servers would be substantially smaller that the number of users.

	The possibility of running ~~such~~ a server would be open, in a hope, that a large number of these would eventually be created. "Hub" sites might exist, that would redirect to the least--loaded servers.		The possibility of running a server would be open, in a hope, that a relatively large number of these would eventually be created. "Hub" sites might exist, that would redirect to the least--loaded servers.

	Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.		Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.

Art at 15:54, 7 February 2014

2014-02-07T15:54:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 7 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because ~~there~~ would be ~~only a small~~ number of ~~peers to propagate changes to~~.		Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because the number of such servers would be substantially smaller that the number of users.

	The possibility of running such a server would be open, in a hope, that a large number of these would eventually be created. "Hub" sites might exist, that would redirect to the least--loaded servers.		The possibility of running such a server would be open, in a hope, that a large number of these would eventually be created. "Hub" sites might exist, that would redirect to the least--loaded servers.

	Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.		Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.

Art at 15:52, 7 February 2014

2014-02-07T15:52:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 7 February 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because there would be only a small number of peers to propagate changes to.		Altslashdot would be run on a number of independent web servers, which would utilise some syncing protocol in order to serve exact copies. The syncing would likely be cheap, because there would be only a small number of peers to propagate changes to.

	Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable exclusion of a rogue server.		The possibility of running such a server would be open, in a hope, that a large number of these would eventually be created. "Hub" sites might exist, that would redirect to the least--loaded servers.

			Beside sharing hosting cost, the architecture would enable the exclusion of a rogue server.