If you use the wonders of distributed computing you could simply buy 10 or more shared hosting packages from various providers such as 1&1, go daddy, dreamhost, etc. and easily cover all the bandwidth costs.
They just need distributed software. Seriously all the bandwidth issues are from static images and flash files. The board software doesn't even need to be distributed just the images.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 2:21
And all these places you mentioned are okay with hosting pr0n?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 2:21
4chan needs better management!
Fixed
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 2:41
well dreamhost is (but would you trust em?)
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 2:53
1and1 is fine for not cp
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 12:55
You don't understand the bandwidth problem. It has practically infinite usage, limited by only having a 100Mbit pipe. Any distribution to shared accounts will destroy those instantly.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 12:57
You don't understand the bandwidth problem. The internet is a series of tubes.
Fix'd.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 14:21
They're basically maxing out their 100 Mbit line.
So that's 100/8 = 12.5 MB/s (megabytes per second)
Which is 12.5*86400 = 1,080,000 MB/day
Making 30.5*1080000 = 32,940,000 MB/month
In other words, that's almost 33 terabytes per month bandwidth usage.
How are you going to reliably split this much data transfer across a handful of shared hosting accounts?
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 15:58
>>8
It's not that much data, I use 1-2 TB a month on my DSL.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 17:38
It would happily max out something bigger. 150 easily, possible even 200.
Try finding a shared hosting plan that lets you transfer even a sizeable fraction of 33 TB
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 21:21
I know someone had once written some p2p image board software that allowed users to 'donate' their bandwidth. I'm not sure if that's really feasible or not for a site like 4chan. What do you guys think?
These hosting plans give 2TB of transfer per month
That is enough to cover 4chan and it costs way way way way less than $1000 a month.
For $400 a month you have 40 accounts at 2TB each that's 80TB, that's 2.4X more service for a 40% of the cost
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 22:32
If 33TB is all you need then 14 accts is enough at 2TB per acct.
You only need 14 accts per month to match 4chan right now. And 4chan at one time hosts no more than 4GB of content, so each host could be a FULL MIRROR of all the image board content, thus you could randomly distribute the image across all the hosts per each page.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 22:42
You mean 17
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-01 23:00
4chan needs better software! If you use the wonders of distributed computing you could simply buy 10 or more shared hosting packages from various providers such as 1&1, go daddy, dreamhost, etc. and easily cover all the bandwidth costs.
Wakaba already does this, and has for some time. Hilarity.
Some day moot will stop being an idiot and get something better than the current crap running the site.
Where the hell did this come from, anyway?
WAHa is a better programmer than me or coda.
We are better programmers than whoever wrote 2chan's script in the first place, as well as this trevorchan thing (though it shows promise but it was clearly written by a naive 15-year-old).
Wakaba is perfectly clean in any part I have ever examined. You just have to know how to set up httpd to actually run Perl fast.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 6:32
Real men write their sites in Haskell!
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 6:41
Sure, it's great compared to 2chan/thorn/shiichan/what-have-you. I'm not a big fan of the coding style and the SQL design is pretty lacking.
Please take some things with a grain of salt, Mr TripFag.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 7:13
>>24
I agree trevorchan is horrid code-wise. Awefull. Shiichan is arguably even worse though. Shiichan is full of copy-pasta and weeaboo-code.
<code>foreach ($name as $namae) { }</code> <- lol
Wakaba is clearly written by someone who is good at Perl. However it wasn't written to be maintained, but to be simple to set up. It's not well structured, all functions being in two files. The way posts, threads are generated and saved makes wakaba very tricky to extend or alter. At least if you want to keep the posts from it's current versions.
Also, is there any way to run wakaba with mod_perl? >>26
Wakaba doesn't use SQL. Also him being a 4chan coder gives some weight to the post, it was not a faggy tripcode usage.
1. Write an image/text board in clean, commented Python for maintainability and extensibility, using lambdas to define everything so you can redefine what you need in the future (such as the way to handle tripfags) and templates so you can make a better style than the shit world4ch.org has now (templated too, but ugly).
2. Use a relational database built for heavy loads with row or page-level locking, not just "let's lock the fuck out of everything" table or file-based locking. I suggest MySQL using the InnoDB engine, which is also transactional (and if you think you'd benefit from read performance at the cost of table-level locking, switching to MyISAM is a snap).
3. ????
4. PROFIT
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 13:59
1. Write board in bash script
2. Use filesystem to store/retrieve data
3. ??????
404 File Not Found
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 14:37
Somebody bring back the old World4ch template with the sage box.
I agree, that's a problem with Kareha (the one that doesn't use SQL), but his html is clean enough that it probably doesn't need much modification. I had some pain upgrading a board from wakaba-zero once though :(
Wakaba doesn't have that problem anyway.
Shiichan is hard to read but secure, except for the bbcode library which is easy to read and not secure. The local version is a lot cleaner and I might release it once I'm finished.
w4ch isn't an imageboard and this is CLASSIC JAPANESE STYLE sir!
I'm going to make a new design sometime but I am sticking with 0ch 4 lyfe
There aren't any complex queries being run at all, and the only problems flat files would introduce are difficulty pruning posts and no global numbers. 2ch and this script don't use SQL. I would use MyISAM as count() is slow. Really, don't do premature optimzation.
Also if you're going to do it right use Rails or something
Actually, Wakaba's SQL "design" is pretty much just copied right out of Futaba. In retrospect, this probably wasn't the most brilliant idea, but it does have some things going for it, such as being extremely minimalist, so you can just slurp the entire database out in one go when rebuilding the page.
(4chan does this too, I believe, at least I helped coda work on that at some point.)
>>34
I already know how to sage. I liked the box because it was handy.
>>35
I dunno. Most people liked the old style. I remember a huge ass uproar when it was changed.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-02 17:09
If I did it, I'd write a new one of course, I wouldn't bother with distributing the comments (I don't have evidence to suggest it is a lot of HTML bandwidth). I would make an upload & send & delete interface for all the image hosts.
When somebody uploaded a file I'd schedule uploads to all the other servers. When I generated a page on the image board I'd randomly choose a server to serve the file from each time (or even rely on javascript for this). Alternatively the load could also be shared via round robin DNS, but browsers like firefox etc can be pretty stupid about DNS resolution and caching.
The comments are so painfully dull I wouldn't even bother worrying about it. You can use whatever jerk off design you want to. Flat file is only so fast and has lame locking, anything connection based has connection handle issues as well communication issues.
Oh and when a thread or image was deleted the server just sends a message to the imageservers to delete that file.
A more interesting system would be a distributed comment system. Where even the comment pages where distributed across boards across machines. But I think that text boards and comments and replies are not what is dragging 4chan down. I don't have the stats etc but I am just assuming that.
Nobody ever told me a single useful thing about any of this. All I got were a lot of random THIS IS FAGGOT posts. moot and I like this one better, anyway.
(And without an email field how can you do fusianasan or omikuji?!)
>>39
We have no interest in that distributed host thing. There is no way to spend less money in total for the amount of bandwidth we use, and danbooru/etc's solution is to put things on reseller hosts with artificially low bills. This only works because they don't get enough visits to not be immediately kicked off. If you're a nonprofit website in the near-1000s on Alexa there's only so much you can do.