On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote on Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 19:01:25 -0500: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Philip Martin > > <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > >... > > > Another concern is the increased server logging due to the large > > > increase in the number of requests. A 1.8 server does better than older > > > servers, about 50% fewer requests on checkout, but there is still a big > > > increase over neon. No solution other than "it happens". > > > > You keep mentioning this. But what is the problem? "More logs" is too > > subjective to quality as a concern/problem. > > > > In October, svn.apache.org generated about 900M of logs(*). Is that a > > problem? I wouldn't think so. At that rate, a simple 1T drive could > > hold over 83 years of logs. Are there installations busier than > > How many years would those 1TB disks last for if all neon clients were > converted to serf?
Dunno what the factor is. Maybe 10 years. Is that worrisome? I say "nope", thus my query to Philip on why there is any concern about logs storage. Shoot. My *laptop* can store decades of logs of Apache traffic. I'm just not seeing an issue. (not to mention simple log rotation for those who don't need a decade+ of log data) Cheers, -g
