4 ms·

Netflix runs their most expensive part (pushing those terrabits of traffic ), with their own hardware and network. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://o

by keepper 10y ago

Netflix runs their most expensive part (pushing those terrabits of traffic ), with their own hardware and network. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ so, you were saying? Or do you think facebook,google,aol,tripadvisor and pretty much anyone beside HotNewStartup are incompetent?

morgante 10y ago
I know Netflix runs their own edge nodes, which is precisely why OP sounds incompetent and uninformed. Netflix has spent lots of time and effort into analyzing and building the architecture which is optimized for them. > Or do you think facebook,google,aol,tripadvisor and pretty much anyone beside HotNewStartup are incompetent? Far from it, and that's precisely my point. At Facebook scale, it certainly makes sense to run your own data centers. At HotNewStartup, it obviously doesn't. Competence is finding the solution which works best for your scale and organization, not following some generic rule.
- keepper 10y ago
  I bet to wager Netflix and Snapchat are at Facebook scale. Certainly $500M/ year in cloud commitments for the next 4 years seem to indicate so.
  - morgante 10y ago
    I'm not sure, but I am sure that someone internally is doing those calculations.
mynameisvlad 10y ago
More than likely so that the video feed is as close to you as possible, rather than only because of cost efficiency. The video is the most important part of their product, so keeping it at your ISP or a local exchange not only lowers latency, but most likely also gives better throughput since it only has to travel through your ISP's network or local exchange links without having to go through the rest of the internet backbone.
- keepper 10y ago
  Its not "more thank likely", it is the real reason. CDN's could not keep with their volume AS WELL as pricing structure. Latency ( 30ms vs 300ms) doesn't matter much in video playback, only throughput. Once you hit play, it isn't bi-directional. But you're just nitpicking. This IS their core business, and they realized its "too core" to give to someone else. So yes, you do "outgrow the cloud", and well, part of "outgrowing" can be cost structure. Gitlab offers a free service, their main competitor, github, runs their own datacenter. Why do you think that is?
  - mynameisvlad 10y ago
    Right, but that alone shows that the reason they didn't go for the cloud for those has nothing to do with the capabilities of it, just that the locations are not close enough to their userbase to make sense. Put another way, if there was a cloud DC in each major city and Netflix hadn't already started using their own edge nodes, then there's nothing stopping them from spinning them up in each cloud DC as opposed to their own hardware. There's nothing inherently special about their setup except location. Nothing about this situation says that Netflix "realized its "too core" to give to someone else." I don't quite understand how you're making that leap. Instead, they had a very specific requirement (that most companies don't have, mind you) that current cloud hosts can't provide. Nothing else.
StreamBright 10y ago
Even Netflix uses AWS for the autoscaling enabled workloads. Besides, here is a list of companies using AWS: https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/ You think Google and Microsoft is incompetent when they offer cloud services to their customers? There are a lot of companies that do know want to own any datacenter related infrastructure because it is irrelevant to their business and there is no on-board expertise. While there are companies that can afford to hire staff for running large DC operations. I thought this is pretty obvious to everybody.

by keepper 10y ago

morgante 10y ago

I know Netflix runs their own edge nodes, which is precisely why OP sounds incompetent and uninformed. Netflix has spent lots of time and effort into analyzing and building the architecture which is optimized for them. > Or do you think facebook,google,aol,tripadvisor and pretty much anyone beside HotNewStartup are incompetent? Far from it, and that's precisely my point. At Facebook scale, it certainly makes sense to run your own data centers. At HotNewStartup, it obviously doesn't. Competence is finding the solution which works best for your scale and organization, not following some generic rule.

keepper 10y ago
I bet to wager Netflix and Snapchat are at Facebook scale. Certainly $500M/ year in cloud commitments for the next 4 years seem to indicate so.
- morgante 10y ago
  I'm not sure, but I am sure that someone internally is doing those calculations.

mynameisvlad 10y ago

More than likely so that the video feed is as close to you as possible, rather than only because of cost efficiency. The video is the most important part of their product, so keeping it at your ISP or a local exchange not only lowers latency, but most likely also gives better throughput since it only has to travel through your ISP's network or local exchange links without having to go through the rest of the internet backbone.

keepper 10y ago
Its not "more thank likely", it is the real reason. CDN's could not keep with their volume AS WELL as pricing structure. Latency ( 30ms vs 300ms) doesn't matter much in video playback, only throughput. Once you hit play, it isn't bi-directional. But you're just nitpicking. This IS their core business, and they realized its "too core" to give to someone else. So yes, you do "outgrow the cloud", and well, part of "outgrowing" can be cost structure. Gitlab offers a free service, their main competitor, github, runs their own datacenter. Why do you think that is?
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  Right, but that alone shows that the reason they didn't go for the cloud for those has nothing to do with the capabilities of it, just that the locations are not close enough to their userbase to make sense. Put another way, if there was a cloud DC in each major city and Netflix hadn't already started using their own edge nodes, then there's nothing stopping them from spinning them up in each cloud DC as opposed to their own hardware. There's nothing inherently special about their setup except location. Nothing about this situation says that Netflix "realized its "too core" to give to someone else." I don't quite understand how you're making that leap. Instead, they had a very specific requirement (that most companies don't have, mind you) that current cloud hosts can't provide. Nothing else.

StreamBright 10y ago

Even Netflix uses AWS for the autoscaling enabled workloads. Besides, here is a list of companies using AWS: https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/ You think Google and Microsoft is incompetent when they offer cloud services to their customers? There are a lot of companies that do know want to own any datacenter related infrastructure because it is irrelevant to their business and there is no on-board expertise. While there are companies that can afford to hire staff for running large DC operations. I thought this is pretty obvious to everybody.