Well, threads are being archived here, so that doesn't save much space.

Hmm. Further investigation shows we have only 32MB of tables.

And by only I mean "only", since we're babies yet.

I have to request telnet access so I can du the subdirectories. And I have to check if e-mail stored on the server counts to that total.

Oh, and in October we had a bandwidth of 17.6 of 20GB allowed. So that's okay. Although the 2nd and the 25th were very low. If we redo the numbers with them at average bandwidth (.6GB), that brings us up to 19.6GB/month. Which is pretty close to the wire.

October usage:

DayHitsFilesPagesVisitsSitesKBytes%age KB 186,56846,8613,340944606721,6893.91% 28,9374,74234412315671,2870.39% 385,18747,1484,1011,092669700,7443.79% 481,82442,7333,019909614620,8303.36% 547,98423,0881,798625472333,9011.81% 657,89831,3742,170646513435,9912.36% 783,72747,1023,6501,085702732,3143.96% 889,17748,0663,930959609745,7044.04% 983,68046,9834,005986652722,2453.91% 1075,04741,2983,444881601626,2933.39% 1178,02742,3932,673827581628,1553.40% 1240,45822,3481,648525417289,3421.57% 1352,51728,1762,111605510394,0222.13% 1482,22546,7963,915935618732,2973.96% 1599,44854,3774,225959682827,5224.48% 1692,13153,9154,3061,027666801,6814.34% 1775,24343,4463,104870595640,8093.47% 1879,72044,7223,099816579677,0113.66% 1954,24626,1771,678583484376,5582.04% 2049,01224,9771,750625547344,0881.86% 2173,53740,7473,026811556598,7273.24% 2292,91151,0523,684937630781,7594.23% 23105,08458,9794,1861,063684870,2134.71% 2489,45149,4943,407849574732,8603.97% 253,7422,0241474911030,3450.16% 2660,38432,1642,065712542443,8622.40% 2767,94137,1152,432773536501,8322.72% 2892,06653,5493,8421,057664803,5644.35% 2988,51952,5984,060967605776,7224.20% 3094,75254,8903,836972618789,0044.27% 3181,71547,9183,707893562726,4903.93% TOTAL2,253,1581,247,25292,70225,10517,35418,477,861 

So what's the penalty for going over the bandwidth?

They shut the site down, if I read the fora right.

How comes the archiving notion?

I've got a threadsuck utility finished that's awaiting testing from ita (nudge, nudge ;) ).

The threadsucker might break the bandwidth's back.

In theory, that won't save any space unless we store the files off buffistas.org. I haven't run the numbers, but the HTML might very well be bigger than the data in the tables.

The threadsucker might break the bandwidth's back.

Does the sucker work via hitting the server, or internally by grabbing stuff from the DB? If the latter, no bandwidth issues at all.

They shut the site down, if I read the fora right.

Don't they just charge us more? That seems wrong.

If the info gets to a browser, there will be bandwidth issues.

As for the charging, I think they shut it down, and then ask for more money. At least, that's what some users have experienced.