mel.flynn+fbsd.questions at mailing.thruhere.net
Wed May 27 21:31:18 UTC 2009
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:34:36 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > I don't see what static content has got to do with it. OP wants a
> > different delivery method. Just like you can download the static FreeBSD
> > DVD via ftp/http or torrent.
> i said "exaggeration", not "wrong way".
> if there is a requirement to use THAT delivery method from client, you are
> absolutely right.
> But if someone just want to put some movies on his/her webpage, or maybe
> create youtube-like service, then storing with FTP/HTTP is just best.
No, the keys are the size of the files and/or bandwidth available:
- size matters? Yes, see pftop:
DEST STATE AGE EXP PKTS BYTES
184.108.40.206:8020 4:4 05:03:05 23:59:59 380K 296M
5 hours of online radio and I downloaded 296Meg. I don't want that hitting my
harddisk at all. And if I do, then I can always record it.
- Bandwidth: This didn't interrupt noticeably with my work (ssh sessions) and
other web use (port downloads, remote imap, webmail, smtp over ssh, etc) and
I'm currently not using altq.
That's just from client perspective. From server perspective, the bandwidth
advantage should be clear. There's no real advantage to gain maintaining altq
rules / mod_bandwidth / foo-solution or a streaming server, except if the
former are already in place.
Most important is to consider if your users "want to save the file", cause a
lot of clients hide or don't provide this feature. Over time though, as speeds
and availability increase more and more people are seeing the internet as
"another harddrive" so that distinction will fade.
If I'm correct, Jos is from .nl, where people are spoiled in that respect .
 http://www.upc.nl/internet/ up to 120MBit down, 10Mbit up.
More information about the freebsd-questions