Subject:
|
Re: why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:38:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
robdye@writeme&AntiSpam&.com
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
I would say you ought to be forwarding all this info to the people at
LEGO, whatever contacts you have there. You are essentially providing
them with free advertising, and with this info in such hight demand,
they'd have to be fools not to consider keeping the latest catalog on
their web site.
Oh...wait...
Never mind...
8) Rob
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Anyway, I sure didn't expect there to be 2000 people per day accessing these
> 1999 catalog images -- pushing the bandwidth out of the hundreds-of-
> Megabytes-per-day range and into the Gigabytes-per-day range.
here's a report showing the number of bytes
> served for each hour since they went up:
>
> 05/Dec/1998:15 33,304,846 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:16 33,630,415 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:17 108,988,439 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:18 106,963,101 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:19 119,253,460 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:20 137,691,088 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:21 152,989,190 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:22 173,909,026 bytes
> 05/Dec/1998:23 101,954,706 bytes
> -------------- -------------------
> 05/Dec/1998 968,684,271 bytes
>
> 06/Dec/1998:00 126,142,210 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:01 86,882,915 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:02 50,541,650 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:03 27,575,988 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:04 35,603,686 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:05 28,093,864 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:06 23,975,785 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:07 25,076,653 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:08 24,835,215 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:09 67,773,803 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:10 51,227,753 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:11 68,373,830 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:12 63,216,436 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:13 89,672,801 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:14 61,065,479 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:15 93,040,086 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:16 113,672,904 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:17 71,443,399 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:18 90,081,238 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:19 69,362,413 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:20 85,094,121 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:21 89,560,609 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:22 109,852,220 bytes
> 06/Dec/1998:23 122,314,048 bytes
> -------------- -------------------
> 06/Dec/1998 1,674,479,106 bytes
>
> 07/Dec/1998:00 70,538,655 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:01 60,055,973 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:02 27,889,324 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:03 54,267,972 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:04 35,099,429 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:05 50,773,150 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:06 45,961,658 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:07 161,868,579 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:08 116,308,539 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:09 195,027,779 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:10 228,334,519 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:11 189,310,221 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:12 168,280,506 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:13 189,903,321 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:14 121,892,170 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:15 95,125,435 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:16 133,878,910 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:17 81,367,814 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:18 95,626,285 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:19 91,949,449 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:20 59,403,506 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:21 58,439,448 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:22 42,339,492 bytes
> 07/Dec/1998:23 67,957,096 bytes
> -------------- -------------------
> 07/Dec/1998 2,441,599,230 bytes
>
> ============== ===================
> 2.375 days 5,084,762,607 bytes
>
> To me, this is just an insanely huge amount of bandwidth (I'm used to
> dealing with smaller files that add up differently).
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | why the 1999 catalog images have moved
|
| Kevin Loch has graciously agreed to host the JPEG files for the 1999 catalog. Image links at (URL) been updated to point to the new directories on Kevin's server www.kl.net, so this should be a mostly-transparent changepoint. The JPEGs do still (...) (26 years ago, 8-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
