Talk:Gmail/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

100MB vs 500MB "edit war"

Resolved

Xp54321 and Cunard have been engaged in a minor "edit war" over whether or not we should be updating the counter every 100MB or every 500MB. Consensus was reached in November 2007 that it should be 500MB, although Xp54321 seems to think it should be every 100MB. I'm inclined to agree that we should re-consider the intervals between size updates, as the amount that Google is adding has significantly dropped now (back in November it was increasing very quickly, hence the decision for a 500MB update interval).

Can we please agree on a new interval to stop this unnecessary backwards and forwards changing of the size and interval without consensus?

100 MB is a better interval as both Jam and Cunard have admitted the allocation of space has slowed down.Updating at that pace won't mean it's updated every day.It's updated once in a while to keep the article up-to-date.And your opposed to this why?Xp54321 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing it, but significantly altering the page without edit summaries or a mention on the talk page is not constructive - hence my starting this discussion here. The original consensus was 500MB, and at the time, that was good enough. As I said, we need to re-evaluate that limit, and I think that 100MB is now suitable. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, everything is resolved. Agreed, every 100 MBXp54321 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Where was everything resolved? Tan | 39 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

After the edit war stopped. If you want details ask me on my talkpage.Xp54321 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has technically be agreed. Just because I say it should be 100MB does not mean the case is closed. We really need the feedback from other editors before we can decide which scale to keep. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was not over, Xp, nor should it be taken to your talk page. You can't simply declare that we will move forward with 100Mb increment edits without some sort of consensus. Tan | 39 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only said "I think that 100MB is now suitable" - that was not me condoning that we should go ahead with incremental 100MB changes. I think we need more editors to contribute their opinions before we decide how to proceed. Until that time, the original 500MB limit should remain in place. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But I think the 6600 MB figure should stay that way until then. Oh and contact more editors. This isn't exactly the #1 most edited article.:)Xp54321 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 6600MB figure can stay there for the moment. I've put in a request for comment from the community. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'm sort of a 3rd party here; I've only edited this article in the past a few times - mostly vandalism. I think once or twice I upheld the 500Mb increment consensus, so take that into account. Anyway, I think the key piece of information we need here is the rate at which the storage is increasing. I couldn't find a good cite on the gmail site itself, so I did a rather unscientific rough estimate of my own gmail storage, which was at 6667Mb and counting. I timed a 1Kb increase to be 26 seconds, and my catscratch math worked that out to be 100Mb every 30 days. I think 30 days is a completely reasonable interval in which to edit this storage statistic, so I !vote for a new edit interval of 100Mb. Tan | 39 01:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done the math as I told Tan and came up with the same result.I !vote 100MB edit interval.Xp54321 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Gmail counter goes up only 100 MB every 30 days (as calculated by Tan and Xp54321), I also vote for the new edit interval to be 100 MB. Cunard(talk) 05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. -Mike Payne (T • C) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Or we could update it once a month.

Btw, I don't see why it is so important to have the most up-to-date figure, when we all know that it is continuously changing. If it really is that interesting, perhaps somebody could add a small graph showing the historical development of space at Gmail, that would also allow a the reader to visually extrapolate into the future.

--Aleph-4 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem with updating it once a month is that "anonymous" or new users come along and update it, despite all the comments around the value saying NOT to update it. I think that even if we said about updating on at a certain time during the month, they would still come and update it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed I'd say there's consensus and I asked other users and they agree too. Removing tag undo if you disagree. It should also be noted Gmail is about to reach 6700 MB in storage space. This incident was resolved just in time. Xp54321 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody has disagreed with the 100MB changes so that is fine by me. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Storage : incoherent statements

Hello, Could you please check the following:

On 12 October 2007, Google ramped up the storage counter[13] to 5.37 MB per hour. Approximately a week later, the counter went back down to 1.12 MB per hour. From 4 January 2008, the counter went back up to about 3.35 MB per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.157.161 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I check and all those numbers are right,however it might be a bit clearer if we switched all there to be in either days or hoursRedekopmark (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me even if it were in days. 1.12 MB an hour is over 26 MB a day, so how is changing 3.35 MB a day going up? Is that a significant decrease, which seems to have happened? caz | speak 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MTA (Mail Transfer Agent)

What MTA does Gmail use? Postfix? Exim? Altonbr (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably something they've coded themselves I suspect. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)