On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:42:13 -0400 Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote: > We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could > create a small, stable irc network that could handle our modest load > of ~700 concurrent clients. I don't know how well irc scales; could > a single server handle that load? Yeah. You're talking about what we refer to as a 'leaf' node. ie: a server that primarily handles end-user traffic. Hubs are much less bandwidth-intensive than leaf nodes, because they don't have to repeat a message once for each user that receives the message (think channels). Leaf nodes will end up replicating a lot of messages and sending them out, but it's pretty unavoidable at the moment. Anyhoo, a T1 could typically handle that many users without breaking a sweat. Hardware-wise, something very modest (think P233 or so) could handle it. > Pro-network: > We can avoid the necessary work of keeping the network running and > maintained and dealing with the attacks and bad behavior that irc > engenders, as the network has people who do that. Just like to point out that it'll be less likely for a small Debian IRC server to be attacked than a large Deban channel on a heterogeneous network. #debian is usually attacked because it's the biggest channel on OPN - not because it's #debian. On the other hand, a single Debian IRC server _would_ be in more trouble than a network if it was attacked. I think the tradeoff would be worth it, though, if the person sponsoring the hardware and bandwidth was able to filter packets at their ISP. > Anti-network: > As has been mentioned, we have debian developers who do that work on > OPN and other networks already. So we know how to do it and we have > people who could do it if they desired to do so. Agreed. Myself and others have volunteered on numerous occasions. > A single server would be less of a target than an entire irc > network. > > Compare with lists.debian.org, which we could after all farm out to > yahoo or something and put up with advertising, but we instead, and > quite rightly, host it ourselves, and deal with administration > ourselves. I agree. One of the things people will say to this is "yeah, but mailing lists are essential. Instant communication a la IRC is nice, but it' hardly essential." I don't see how that's relevant, though. > Pro-network: > Part of a larger community, cross-fertilization, etc. > Anti-network: > What Wichert said, plus see all the politics that has been dragged > into this thread by people who seem to be part of some different, > conflicting communities in addition to their membership in the > debian community. > > And quoting Bdale: > > Actually, what I observed was that of the various IRC channels > > that I spend time on personally, the ones that seem to be the > > least irritating and the most useful are the ones where a single, > > non-IRC-networked server is hosting the channel. What Bdale witnesses, I think, is the lack of cross-fertilisation :) (I mean, it can be a good thing ... and it can be a bad thing :) > Pro-network: > Specifically pro OPN is that they really want to replace irc with > something better, and they really badly seems to need to be done. I'd be careful about this; IRC is popular because it works. There are lots of things that could use changing, but most of them are technical, back-end issues. IRC _has_ been replaced, sort of, by ICQ and friends. I think "fixing" would be better :) > So I don't see much benefit to us in using a large network managed by > someone else, unless politics and apathy keep us from hosting our own. > > I say all this as a long-time and mostly happy user of OPN, who has > known lilo in RL and likes him and admires his stated goals, and who > has been much more bothered by all the netsplits than the advertising, > and who would continue to use it for a few other channels anyway. But > in retrospect the decision to point irc.debian.org at OPN didn't buy > us much. Yeah, I'd love Debian to run its own IRC server :) (There's no need to run more than one given our load, and that'd result in the same technical problems an IRC network runs in to.)
Attachment:
pgpZ_xlQBSAim.pgp
Description: PGP signature