|
Home > Archive > Macromedia Flash Server > August 2005 > Distributing Bandwidth Load across Servers
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Distributing Bandwidth Load across Servers
|
|
| Brian Lesser 2005-08-26, 2:45 am |
| Hi Simon,
I don't want to continue hijacking David's thread so have changed the
subject of this message.
Not a nutty idea at all. With a Web app server you could write a
distributed app to do this today. If MM delivers on what they discussed
at their Sneak Peek it will be easier to build with the next FlashCom
release. But at the end of the day you would still have to invest some
serious time to build it.
Ofcourse this makes me think back to Sam's comments and the recent
announcement of Google Talk etc... One wonders what might have been or
still could be. The time investment to build a distributed
communications app that shares bandwidth is not small... It come back to
economics again...
Cheers,
-Brian
Simon Lord wrote:
> I'd like to add a nutty suggestion, it's a little over the top but if
> we're all just spitting in the wind, I might as well also...
>
> Seeing as how some people are hung up on the bandwidth issue, and
> trading serial numbers isn't a real honest option, so I propose the
> following...
>
> ( Mind you this *idea* would really only be valuable between people
> that trust each other, but I digress...)
>
> What if the admin server could somehow communicate with another admin
> server located *wherever* to find out how much bandwidth that server
> is *not* using in order to boost it's own BW limit when it needs to.
> For instance, say Brian or Stefan are giving a presentation in a week
> and they are tight for BW so I give them my IP and a password (I
> enter their IP and the same password in my admin). Their admin
> server can now call my admin server too see what I'm *not* using in
> terms of FCS BW so it can boost its own.
>
> Any bandwidth cost would be incurred by Brian or Stefan because
> *their* FCS was temporarily boosted in bandwidth by the amount I
> wasn't using (my FCS would be crippled by the amount *leant* to the
> other FCS license(s)) - it's not actually directing streams to *my*
> server. And I don't see how it could even be used as a crude form of
> load balancing so it's of no real threat to large outfits or even MM.
>
> But it does allow the little people to share resources for a short
> amount of time while at the same time keeping people honest. If
> several people on this list traded IP's it would mean they
> *potentially* had access to a 70MB BW cap for a presentation.
>
> I personally own a Pro license that uses 2% of my 2 Terabyte monthly
> BW cap. So I could potentially be helping people on the list through
> a tight spot quite easily if we had the means to do so.
>
>
>
>
>
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| II Site Design Gmail 2005-08-26, 2:45 am |
| Very good move Brian... we should have started a new thread a long time ago!
As Stefan suggested, let's send our real concerns to Macromedia by filling
out a feature request form
(http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/m...duct=16&6213=24).
I know I have been good for some serious complaining, but let's talk
rationally. Should Macromedia (1) lift the bandwidth limit altogether, (2)
raise the bandwidth limit to something reasonable and equivilant to the
number of connections allowed or (3) go to a per server/per CPU licensing
shcheme?
Like Stafan said, there is no way he could ever connect 2,500 people using
only 10 Mbps in a worth-while application using any video at all. I think
that Macromedia should keep the price the same, keep the # of connections
the same, but raise the bandwidth limit to something appriate for that
number of connections.
About Macromedi's investment in the Flash Player. Yes, I do think they
should be compensated for their research and development. But with Flex,
Breeze, Flash Pro and FCS, don't you think that they are getting a good
return on their investment already without having to force developers to
limit their use of FCS or go elsewhere for good quality, live and on-demand
video streaming?
-Aaron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lesser" <blesser-6s6ziW1YCwCw5LPnMra/2Q@public.gmane.org>
To: "FlashComm Mailing List" <flashcomm-1Ss2GqJETD3yZ38Mhd3e/9ZfFG6BLHNm@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:40 AM
Subject: [FlashComm] Distributing Bandwidth Load across Servers
> Hi Simon,
> I don't want to continue hijacking David's thread so have changed the
> subject of this message.
>
> Not a nutty idea at all. With a Web app server you could write a
> distributed app to do this today. If MM delivers on what they discussed at
> their Sneak Peek it will be easier to build with the next FlashCom
> release. But at the end of the day you would still have to invest some
> serious time to build it.
> Ofcourse this makes me think back to Sam's comments and the recent
> announcement of Google Talk etc... One wonders what might have been or
> still could be. The time investment to build a distributed communications
> app that shares bandwidth is not small... It come back to economics
> again...
> Cheers,
> -Brian
>
> Simon Lord wrote:
>
>
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
> Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
> =-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your subscription options or search the archive:
> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
| |
| Brajeshwar 2005-08-26, 2:45 am |
| Hi,
> What if the admin server could somehow communicate with another admin
> server located *wherever* to find out how much bandwidth that server
> is *not* using in order to boost it's own BW limit when it needs to.
> For instance, say Brian or Stefan are giving a presentation in a week
> and they are tight for BW so I give them my IP and a password (I
> enter their IP and the same password in my admin). Their admin
> server can now call my admin server too see what I'm *not* using in
> terms of FCS BW so it can boost its own.
I have a more or less working demo of this setup but I can show that
only to those who will take the trouble of mailing me offlist!
--=20
Regards
Brajeshwar
________________________________________
=-----------------------------------------------------------
Supported by Fig Leaf Software - http://www.figleaf.com
=-----------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription options or search the archive:
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcomm
|
|
|
|
|