12-08-2007, 07:25 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Segway Video Humor
Ok . . . we have to be balanced to ride Segways so . . . here's the other side;
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
12-08-2007, 07:26 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
It is, after all, the world's greatest invention;
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
12-08-2007, 08:10 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Silentville
Posts: 1,122
|
Since when can we imbed youtube videos?
|
12-09-2007, 01:25 AM | #5 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Posts: 2,533
|
Quote:
As a person who works in the bandwidth optimization arena (yes, different business) I love it (makes me $$$$) but man does it slow down the internet and when I'm browsing on my Blackberry or on a slow connection it just mucks things up! What most people tend to forget is that not everybody has broadband, in fact a minority worldwide have broadband or even a semblance thereof. Steven |
|
12-09-2007, 01:28 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
The link takes practically zero bandwidth; certainly far less than some of the photos we routinely attach to posts. It's only when you actually stream it (and it's always your option not to) that significantly higher bandwidth is required.
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
12-09-2007, 02:28 AM | #7 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Posts: 2,533
|
Quote:
I don't have the numbers in front of my but, for math's sake let's say that "average" size is 100K. That is 100K that is shot out every time somebody opens that post (it is not cached locally on your PC). You then multiply that times the the number of views and you have a large number. Let's take your Segway Video Classics post. It has four (4) embedded links and has been viewed 81 times: 4 x 100K x 81 = 32.4 MB Not a lot unless you are Frank Tropea and are hosting the site out of your own pocket and have bandwidth charges to pay for the embedded link! (most don't, btw as it is just a pointer). Of course, if you are on a non-broadband account you are looking at a slow load abut disabling the autoplay function is a great touch. Now, let's take the flipside, which is that 1/2 those people click on the link. If I remember correctly the average YouTube vide is just over 6.1 MB in size.... 4 x 6.1 x 40 = 976 MB just streamed across the internet thanks to YouTube (and you ). The point is that the viral nature of YouTube is killing the internet. As of June of this year YouTube accounted for 20% of all HTTP traffic (equal to 10% of all network traffic). Read that again....one company, one site, one application accounts for 10% of all traffic. More numbers: As of June YouTube was serving approx 100,000,000 (yep, 100 MILLION) videos a day. Average size, 6.1MB, that is 610,000,000 MB a day or 595.7 TB a day...every single day of the year. Based on current worldwide network size, a constant growth rate in users, and the ever increasing downloads via HTTP (most often termed recreational downloads) there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012. We proved how important controlling recreational internet at the local campus of a US college. In a matter of hours we were able to control the flow of P2P, YouTube, and Facebook (the three worst offenders on the net) and cut their bandwidth consumption by greater than 70%...saving them more than 55GB a day. Sure, some of the students aren't happy but...who's paying the bandwidth bill? Anyway, I need to jump off my bandwagon here. I could go on forever. Steven |
|
12-09-2007, 02:40 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Quote:
Things change. Bandwidth expands to fit the requirements and by 2012 there will be more than enough to satisfy the needs of YouTube. In fact, that's how it works; supply and demand. Nobody in this business is going to let the internet grind to a halt due to bandwidth concerns. It will just keep getting bigger. Trust me.
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
|
12-09-2007, 03:29 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Posts: 2,533
|
Quote:
It is simple, it really is. There is a finite number of data bits that can be pushed across a cable, whether it be copper or fiber and there is a finite number of packets that can be handled by a router, switch, or firewall. Your average residential user is at the tail end of a copper line that is maxed in transmission capabilities and yet people want more...more speed, more data, more downloads. So, their telco or cable company comes in and puts in fiber. But that too can only hold so much data. So they create routers and switches that can move data faster and in smaller (more condensed) packets. We are deploying 10Gig boxes now...still not enough. Why? Because of latency. It doesn't matter how big you make the pipe or how fast you make the boxes, physics limit the speed at which data can travel. 200ms latency on a network will ALWAYS be 200ms latency. You can only appear to make it faster but caching data, using multiple connections, or multiple routes but the latency is still there. The positive on this is that more and more people are getting access to the Internet. The negative is that more and more people are getting access to the Internet. Each person uses exponentially more bandwidth than is available to them and therein lies the problem. Steven |
|
12-09-2007, 04:00 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 1,335
|
Let's revisit your original claim; "Based on current worldwide network size, a constant growth rate in users, and the ever increasing downloads via HTTP (most often termed recreational downloads) there are strong indications that for many the internet will slow to a crawl between 2010 and 2012."
Would you care to place a wager on this? I think we may need to define a few terms such as "slow to a crawl" and dates, but I'd be willing to make the over/under at "slower than 61.8% and January 1, 2011". I certainly don't think you're ever going to see that much of a reduction due to normal bandwidth demands (terrorist, nuclear and natural disasters not withstanding). Perhaps at some under-engineered facility, but certainly not system wide.
__________________
Harry Potter may fly a broomstick, but I ride a magic lawnmower. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|