on Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 03:29:18PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Long config files I'd rather see placed in webspace somewhere than sent to the list, but I don't think that's been discussed here yet. Attachments have.
ok, I didn't see uuencoding some content as attaching it (attaching usually refers to mime these days..). Pasting some config files are still attachments by this definition though.
I agree unnecessary attachments are bad. But if someone specifically asks for the contents of a file or it are necessarily to demonstrate something, I personally would far prefer to have that posted to the list. Someone (I apologise to that person) decided recently not to post command output to the list for fear it would annoy you.
Something in the faq/mailing list welcome/reminder, like this might help clear things up: "You should avoid attaching files of any kind, this includes MIME/Base64/uuencoded files. It is quite acceptable to post a short extract from any relevant configuration file or command output. For long contents and additional files, place them on an ftp or http site and post the url. Signatures should not exceed 4 lines. Avoid webmail systems that automagically attach advertising signatures."
You're assuming that every person will want it. I doubt that 10% of the 150+ subscribers to this list wanted that zip file (only one person requested it, so sending it offlist as an attachment would probably have sufficed), so I'm not sure how that would change your figures.
well, the list isn't just accessible by ~150 people. Posts to the list outlast subscriptions, and yes, I've got this "but what if in $timeperiod someone has the same problem, and we already have a good archive of answers" in my head lots. Information (including addition files) need to be easily accessible to them. I have suffered too much from dead links in archives in the past.
Just for the fun of it.. :) (I'm probably just about to make some fundamental errors in addition..)
Linux seems to set mss,nop,wscale,nop,nop,timestamp tcp options by default.
vanilla 20 byte tcp header + mss (4 bytes) + timestamp (10 bytes) + wscale (3 bytes) = 36 bytes (ignoring nops)
dns request/response = 362 bytes syn from client = 56 bytes syn|ack from server = 56 bytes ack from client = 56 bytes http request from lynx = 406 bytes ack from http server = 56 bytes http reply from apache = 951 bytes ack from client = 56 bytes fin from server = 56 bytes ack from client = 56 bytes fin from client = 56 bytes ack from server = 56 bytes
traffic transfered via http for 1 person = 2223 bytes for 15 people = 33345 bytes for 50 people = 111150 bytes for 150 people = 333450 bytes
assume average length of url = 45 bytes extra transfer by mail if not using http = (725-45)*150 = 102000 bytes (uuencoded data is 725 bytes)
transfer saved by sending via http assuming only x people wanted it for 1 person = 99777 bytes for 15 people = 68655 bytes for 50 people = -9150 bytes for 150 people = -231450 bytes
oh well.. guilty as charged. But maybe over time I shall be redeemed since the saving by sending via http can only decrease (or stay still) with time. :)