Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> This /. article touches a discussion that (IIRC) occurred here about >> whether using Amazon for bittorrent seeds would actually work -- or >> would all the traffic naturally migrate to Amazon as the biggest pipe? >> >> http://slashdot.org/articles/08/03/08/042227.shtml >> >> A Norwegian broadcasting company NRK, did this experiment and figures >> torrent cut their costs to 1700/41000 (~4%) of their estimated >> non-torrent costs! >> >> Anybody see anything to question about this calculation? >> >> I can't read the Norwegian, but it doesn't seem they don't have any >> details about their AWS setup, merely mentioning S3. > > Two things: > > 1) Amazon generally has some of the best bandwidth prices around bar > none. Nobody I have been able to extract a quote out of comes close. > > For something like BitTorrent which is basically just vacuuming up dumb > bandwidth, this is pretty close to ideal. > > 2) Amazon would become the main pipe given infinite bandwidth and zero > latency. In the real world, however, Amazon presents neither. I'm sure > that Amazon has limits on both. > > If nothing else, the compute power of an EC3 instance probably limits this. > > So, if too many people were using you as a direct download, all you need > to do is reduce the number of EC3 instances running BitTorrent. Latency > goes up, bandwidth goes down, and people start pulling the other seeds. >
Maybe they only had one seed instance? Couldn't see any details in the article, even after passing through a translator http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Norwegian&to=English Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
