So exactly WHY are we going to a new, bigger capacity setup when we, 
in some cases (bandwidth), are not yet using the current fully? Can 
somone explain that? When I was in the corporate mainframe world, we 
would usually not buy a new CPU until we had been running 100% usage 
for months..and disks when we were at 80-90% of capacity..

I'm know there is a whole lot I don't know about HCOOP's setup...but 
from what I can see, the setup under ABU/Xiolink would still well 
suffice for my needs...I've pulled my sites webalizer stats for 17 
months (10 on new and 7 on ABU) into Excel..and yes, they've 
grown...but still would be a very small user compared to our biggest 
users...so could I stay back on Interserver and let the power users 
move on the the new big system and let them pay for that capacity? 

Yes, I realize there is some HCOOP overhead in disk and bandwidth, and 
sharing that cost is not a problem...except that I'm not using any 
email on HC, so my usage of that is nill...but looking at the last  
month of Apache bandwidth stats for all users, one user accounts for 
51% of total, and the prior month, 38% of total..mine averages about 
1%...should we pay the same amount for HC overhead, such as wiki and 
portal, etc? Yes but maybe adjusted for email use or not...but 
definitely for our indivdual site usage it should be by amount used!

I firmly belive we should have sufficient resources for current users 
and room for them to expand and some buffer for new users, but going 
overboard to handle hundreds of new users seems to be a bit overkill.

-- Adam Chlipala <adamc@hcoop.net> wrote:
Nathan Kennedy wrote:

>This is silly.  Our need for capacity is based on the aggregate of 
all 
>member's usage.
>
No, our capacity choices for the new scheme are based on projections 
of 
likely membership size in the next few years.  We will be 
underutilizing 
what we set up, so the actual usage of any particular member will be 
trivial compared to all of the resources available.  I think the 
amount 
of unused resources will be several times larger than the amount of 
used 
resources, meaning that any costs assigned based on real usage will be 
insignificant compared to the remaining cost of unused stuff.  Now 
what 
to do with the rest?