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:

> 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