dapz
So ~$900/month for bandwidth alone.
The disk and CPU costs for me are worth it, much better to pay $600/month and let that be someone else's headache. But the bandwidth makes this totally a nonstarter.
Out of curiosity, what are you moving?
I'm also not sure how these smaller datacenters somehow charge so much less for bandwidth.
I'm not claiming that such a model is guaranteed to be perfect or even as good as a pollster, but it sounds in principle like a reasonable thing to do, if you take appropriate precautions to reduce bias.
If the alternative is maintaining a single index, won't the time it takes to update it at least be the time it takes to update per-user indexes? The former naively sounds like updating a single, gigantic binary search tree, the latter seems like updating a hashmap of UserId/BST pairs.
"Secondly, this approach requires the system to maintain as many indices as there are users with each stored in a separate file. With over 300 million users, keeping track of so many indices in production would be an operational nightmare."
..Why?
Anyway the stuff about shared documents is enough to make per-user indexing probably a bad idea, but I don't understand the reasons they provided above.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/playlist#c,s,Spring_2011,EC3E890...
along with the home page for the class:
http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/sp11/
I'm going to use it to complement the PDF version of SICP posted above in this thread.
Contrast this with the US, you can get federally-backed, low-interest loans, go to school majoring in engineering and move from poverty to middle class in one generation.
Pretty sweet deal, imo.