I do know how sentences work. I also know that paragraphs and posts sound be related to each other. Your sentences are not completely divorced from each other.
The point was that you’re claiming to do research on something just to turn around and say something that WILDLY wrong. This discredits any amount of research you would have done.
Doesn’t matter if you say simultaneously or not. You said THOUSANDS… I showed you just 1000. And this was ONLY looking at bandwidth. Not actual server costs.
The point was that you’re claiming to do research on something just to turn around and say something that WILDLY wrong
I claimed to do research on something very specific. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to prove me wrong instead of just intentionally misrepresenting my statement.
Doesn’t matter if you say simultaneously or not.
…of course it does? A thousand simultaneous streams is not going to have the same load as a dozen…
So now you’ve backed down from “thousands of users” to a dozen?
If you have THOUSANDS OF USERS (your words)… you should probably at least plan for 1000 concurrents, probably more (remember you have to plan for peaks, not average).
You seem to be missing this repeatedly… I’m not sure how else to present it to you. You made the claim that a decent singular server should be able to host THOUSANDS (with an S… so multiple thousands.) I’m showing you that even if it’s just 1000 concurrents, you’re paying a heavy cost JUST for bandwidth… forget the server. You’re over your head if you think a single server is doing this shit.
I run a plex instance, I have 8gbps internet to my house. I could host probably 80-100 simultaneous streams on that bandwidth of raw blurays. My servers could not handle that load simultaneously (and they’re hooked up as 40gbps internally). If bandwidth is the easy side of this equation (it is)… and your assertions are already failing… Then you’re just plain wrong.
That’s not how this would have to work though. Even with dedicated seeding instances, the instantiation of a session for a torrent is LONG. Like 5s+ long. A request and response from a CDN is in the milliseconds. Users wouldn’t use a system that takes 5s just for the initial request for a single video, plus the additional time to sort for segments and recombining before it plays. Even in a fast-ish scenario, that’s like 10s alone.
Imagine waiting 10s for a stupid internet video to even start playing to watch some kid dance with a rubber chicken in their pants.
It will scale just fine, so long as the ratio of instances:users is similar.
The current ratio of consumers:creators on youtube is 41:1, by my research. A single server of sufficient power could easily serve thousands of users.
That’s some shitty research you’ve done then.
1000 users streaming something that’s 5mbps would be 5gbps.
5gbps isn’t common for consumers… and costs a lot in a datacenter (about 4k/month on the cheaper end).
Buddy, do you not know how periods work? That’s 2 different sentences you’ve mashed together and pretended they were one.
Secondly, I didn’t say simultaneously.
I do know how sentences work. I also know that paragraphs and posts sound be related to each other. Your sentences are not completely divorced from each other.
The point was that you’re claiming to do research on something just to turn around and say something that WILDLY wrong. This discredits any amount of research you would have done.
Doesn’t matter if you say simultaneously or not. You said THOUSANDS… I showed you just 1000. And this was ONLY looking at bandwidth. Not actual server costs.
I claimed to do research on something very specific. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to prove me wrong instead of just intentionally misrepresenting my statement.
…of course it does? A thousand simultaneous streams is not going to have the same load as a dozen…
So now you’ve backed down from “thousands of users” to a dozen?
If you have THOUSANDS OF USERS (your words)… you should probably at least plan for 1000 concurrents, probably more (remember you have to plan for peaks, not average).
You seem to be missing this repeatedly… I’m not sure how else to present it to you. You made the claim that a decent singular server should be able to host THOUSANDS (with an S… so multiple thousands.) I’m showing you that even if it’s just 1000 concurrents, you’re paying a heavy cost JUST for bandwidth… forget the server. You’re over your head if you think a single server is doing this shit.
I run a plex instance, I have 8gbps internet to my house. I could host probably 80-100 simultaneous streams on that bandwidth of raw blurays. My servers could not handle that load simultaneously (and they’re hooked up as 40gbps internally). If bandwidth is the easy side of this equation (it is)… and your assertions are already failing… Then you’re just plain wrong.
That’s not how this would have to work though. Even with dedicated seeding instances, the instantiation of a session for a torrent is LONG. Like 5s+ long. A request and response from a CDN is in the milliseconds. Users wouldn’t use a system that takes 5s just for the initial request for a single video, plus the additional time to sort for segments and recombining before it plays. Even in a fast-ish scenario, that’s like 10s alone.
Imagine waiting 10s for a stupid internet video to even start playing to watch some kid dance with a rubber chicken in their pants.
That’s weird because it works instantly for me.