6 ms·

Show HN: MASV – Send 20GB+ files up to 1 Gbps. Pay-as-you-go and custom branding

27 points by davehorne 8y ago

chaosprophet 8y ago
How does this compare against existing services? Wondering since we use box for file sharing at our company, and file upload speed has never really been an issue for us.
- sgt 8y ago
  That was my first thought as well. There are tons of file sharing services that already exist, but I think their advantage here is allowing people to send files larger than 20GB. Using DropBox, the limit is 20GB or smaller.
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    At some point, it has to be cheaper and logistically simpler to transfer ownership and not transport the bits. Or the old fallback: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum s/station wagon/"40 foot trailer";s/tapes/disks
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - davehorne 8y ago
      Absolutely we don't try to hide that information you can try out our file transfer calculator here https://www.masv.io/file-transfer-calculator/ https://www.masv.io/file-transfer-calculator/ - This compares MASV to shipping hard drives and uses real rates from the fedex api. The way I like to think of it is it's much more convenient to transfer online instead of shipping hard drives as there is just less to deal with and it's harder to scale. So if MASV is faster or not much longer then shipping a drive or hand delivering then it's time you can spend on taking on more projects.
  - ca6d8815 8y ago
    Google Drive allows files up to 5TB https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en but does not give any guarantee you will not breach some magical limits set. I guess MASV is transparent about file sizes (no limit) and bandwidth is the resource you pay for, so there is transparency on the SLA.
  - davehorne 8y ago
    You got it. In general you can send as much or as little as you need with MASV because it's pay-as-you-go which means you don't have to manage fixed storage and it scales up and down with your work. If you don't use it the next month it costs nothing.
- royjacobs 8y ago
  It seems to be targeted at content creators that routinely have to send very large (~1TB) files. If Masv can do this in a fairly sane way, without issues like "whoops, failed at 99%, try again!" then that's quite a good niche to be in. Especially since there are plenty of post-production companies that host their own 'customer portal' where files can be uploaded/downloaded, which probably has plenty of security issues and so on. This can then be replaced by a branded Masv page, I guess?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - davehorne 8y ago
    Exactly correct.
- davehorne 8y ago
  It depends on which service you compare us to but you could almost think of us as the WeTransfer for large video sharing. We don't have any file size limits, we retain full folder structures and create dynamic zips designed for each target OS, there are no plugins, it's pay-as-you-go so it fits nicely in with project based businesses, custom branding sets us apart from some of the cloud sharing tools, and the interface is intentionally simple to use. We plan to integrate with video specific tools in the near future as well such as Adobe Premier, Final cut pro, etc.. which should make our positioning clearer. When your dealing with sending terabytes of data month small improvements in performance become much more important to your overall business scalability.
jermaustin1 8y ago
Do you chunk the upload so if I lose internet for a second, it can just upload the chunks that failed? This is an issue I have with one of my employees. They only get consumer Comcast, and the connection is crap. I ended up writing a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run. That said, I pay $20/mo for the file server (which i would no matter what) and it has 3TB of outbound bandwidth and unlimited inbound, and is less than 5% of your cost.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > I ended up writing a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run. Use Syncthing, it traverses NATs, it is trivial to set up, it is seemingly very secure by its nature, and crucially for you, it transfers in blocks. You can administer it through a web interface with credentials (or with none, if it's just listening on loopback).
  - jermaustin1 8y ago
    I'll have to check that out. I was just desperate one afternoon after dropbox was failing to sync because of connectivity issues, and I knew bash just well enough to split, scp, rm, repeat.
    - rocmcd 8y ago
      You may also want to look into using rsync as an alternative to scp. rsync is much smarter about how it syncs data, so it should be better for your use case.
    - davrosthedalek 8y ago
      Look at rsync. rsync -avP file host:/path/on/host Repeat if it fails. It will not retransfer already transferred data.
  - davehorne 8y ago
gruez 8y ago
>$0.15/GB that's pretty expensive
- progx 8y ago
  Worst case amazon price (uncompressed + Inter-Region cost + transfer acceleration) is around $0.12, so $0.03 for the Service
  - Matheus28 8y ago
    AWS/GCP/Azure bandwidth is already incredibly overpriced. You can easily find $0.005/GB and less from other providers, if you’re only interested in server hosting. For many applications, you can host servers elsewhere while using AWS for S3, DynamoDB, etc.
    - davehorne 8y ago
      We wanted to stand up a high performance service to start and took on extra cost to do so. We intend to continuously optimize our system to maintain that performance but access it through more affordable options. Even just being smarter about how we spin up and down servers could reduce costs for us outside of also adding other providers to the mix. Ideally once we have some mass of users we will be able to get better pricing and optimize our cost further which should enable us to pass on savings.
  - davehorne 8y ago
    Exactly correct we are running on Azure also so it's slightly more expensive. The idea is eventually as we load the service with users our cost will come down and we can pass some of those saving on to our users. We have built out a network that can run on any cloud so in the future we will be able to further optimize cost by finding less expensive routes that have the same level of performance.
- adriansky 8y ago
  Is this price for monthly bandwidth or for storage?
jedisct1 8y ago
Looks appealing, but when I click "Start free trial", nothing happens, except "ReferenceError: cli_show_cookiebar is not defined" in the console. Not a good start.
- zhan_eg 8y ago
  Didn't have issues with the starting the trial on FF 61 Beta, with uBlock and Privacy Badger enabled. The service looks fairly good, but the speeds are not impressive. It looks Azure is used (and you can test your speed on it here http://www.azurespeed.com/Azure/UploadLargeFile http://www.azurespeed.com/Azure/UploadLargeFile)
  - davehorne 8y ago
    Just to be clear we are not just using the default Azure setup. We have our own proprietary TCP acceleration technology in use on the Azure network and have 9 servers globally enabling acceleration. This test just shows you regular upload to Azure not a routed upload through our network.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  Might be an adblocker blocking a script?
- davehorne 8y ago
  Sorry about that we will look into it right away. The engineers building the web app are much better then my website coding. We will try to reproduce the issue and get it fixed + let you know.
stanfordkid 8y ago
This looks really well designed -- but the performance numbers seem slightly suspicious to me. Both Dropbox and Aspera do UDP + compression + retry so very curious to see how you are able to get such a drastic improvement -- are you using a special form of compression?
- davehorne 8y ago
  Hey! In terms of maxing out your bandwidth there are a few options. Aspera uses UDP which adds some overhead to the transfers and requires you to install plugins or software to connect both ends. The way we max out your bandwidth is by reducing the latency between you and the server closest to you then using javascript to push multiple TCP flows at the same time which also can effectively fill your pipe. On the download side of things we route the data across premium cloud networks and use TCP acceleration in the cloud to enable fast downloads. TCP acceleration tech only needs to be on the sending device so it requires no plugins on the download side versus UDP. Not having plugins is a big benefit though because there are less firewall concerns and it means you can use our service in more restrictive IT environments.
kyleperik 8y ago
How come we don't have a good P2P file transfer system that everyone can use now? Having a server sit in between just passing it along seems like a waste.
- jchook 8y ago
  BitTorrent is pretty popular.
- jermaustin1 8y ago
  I want as few inbound ports open as possible. I'm assuming so does every person. So the simplest solution is to instead we have 2 outbound connections that talk to a middleman. Are their better ways, of course, but this is simple to wrap your head around and can be accomplished by anyone with even the most basic technical understanding.
willejs 8y ago
Aspera uses UDP to work around issues sending large files over long distances on big pipes, which TCP usually isn't great for (1). How does MASV handle this over TCP? Do you have some 'tcp accelerators' in between or it is just heavily chunked content? 1. https://paulgrevink.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/about-long-fat-networks-and-tcp-tuning/ https://paulgrevink.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/about-long-fat-...
- davehorne 8y ago
  Yes to the TCP acceleration. Our parent company LiveQoS is a networking technology company. We use our own TCP acceleration software to enable faster downloads across the clouds. Upload acceleration is handled through chunking and by having many servers in major locations globally reducing latency.
zimbatm 8y ago
Can you talk a little bit about the implementation details? I assume that it's using WebRTC data channels to upload the file. WebRTC includes STUN / TURN to bypass firewalls so it makes it a great fit. My guess is that the performance comes from chunking the data and sending it through multiple data channels. The other performance is to bring the receiving client close to the sender to reduce ACK latencies. I don't think that WebRTC allows to develop custom UDP protocols.
- davehorne 8y ago
  Happy to. We are not using WebRTC. Uploads are accomplished by geo-locating the user to one of our 9 global servers closest to them then chunking the data and sending through multiple data channels using javascript in the browser. On the download side when a user initiates a download it geo-locates the downloader and calculates the optimal route across our cloud network. Our network then uses our own in-house TCP acceleration technology to stream the data quickly across the cloud and to push the data fast from our exit edge server to the end users location. We use a combination of parallel connections, TCP acceleration, premium middle mile networks, and reducing latency to maximize performance.
scarface74 8y ago
How is this better than CloudBerry + AWS S3? Cloudberry allows you to map a drive and makes an AWS S3 bucket look like a standard Windows drive. It also supports multi part upload and supports retrying failed chunks. It's intuitive, built on top of AWS and you can take advantage of all of the other AWS features -- i.e. send an email notification when a file is received, supports versioning, fine grained access control. as much storage space as your budget will allow etc. CloudBerry drive has a one time cost of $40.
- halbritt 8y ago
  CloudBerry is an application that needs to be installed on the client workstation, something which many corporate IT departments do not allow.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    If you're working for a company whose business is to transfer massive files, the IT department should be more than willing to pay for CloudBerry. They would need to set up the AWS account and S3 permissions. It should be a lot easier sell to an IT department an AWS + Cloudberry solution than an unknown company's solution.
    - halbritt 8y ago
      My point was that a browser-only solution is more tenable than installing an application in many cases. I get files from customers in Fortune 100 companies and many of their IT departments absolutely prohibit the installation of something like Cloudberry. It was explained to me that getting IT to approve the installation of a particular application was a multi-month endeavor.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Is there a way to transfer ownership of an S3 bucket? Like, can I upload a file in my AWS account, and by some means transfer the bucket and files to your AWS account? Without the actual data bits moving and incurring a bandwidth charge? That would be ideal for some scenarios.
auslander 8y ago
Tried to make sense of one their patents: - patents.google.com/patent/US8548003B2/en Data transmission units (data units) from the source network are received at an encoding component logically located between the endpoints. These first data units are subdivided into second data units and are transmitted to the destination network over the transport network. Also transmitted are encoded or extra second data units that allow the original first data units to be recreated even if some of the second data units are lost. These encoded second data units may be merely copies of the second data units transmitted, parity second data units, or second data units which have been encoded using erasure correcting coding. At the receiving endpoint, the second data units are received and are used to recreate the original first data units. Got brain damage. What, ffs, does it mean? Help :)
- davehorne 8y ago
  I'm just the marketing guy :) but I will ask the engineer who wrote it and get back to you.
  - auslander 8y ago
    Please, do. I wonder if AWS with their aws s3 cp and linuxes with rsync are infringing this patent.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Sounds like they cache your upload on a server physically near you, and use something like BitTorrent to haul it to a server physically near your destination. Sort of like a CDN for file transfers. This way they can reduce the number of hops (and potential bottlenecks) between their server and destination, maximizing bandwidth.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
FrozenVoid 8y ago
Why not use torrents? Its both cheaper and scales with the number of recipients.
- davehorne 8y ago
  Torrenting requires software and seeders which means your throttled by the seeding parties internet connection. Torrenting can be a good option but you can run into port issues or for restrictive IT policies it can be blocked. ISP's frequently throttle torrents as well. It all depends on what environment you have and the network of the recipient. MASV is intended to require nothing but a browser and enable transfers in a clean, easy to use user interface. In other words it's client-proof which many freelancers or service companies would understand it's not meant to be a replacement for major repeatable workflows that are happening from the same controlled networks it's meant for adhoc deliveries from on-set locations or project based work.

27 points by davehorne 8y ago

How does this compare against existing services? Wondering since we use box for file sharing at our company, and file upload speed has never really been an issue for us.

sgt 8y ago
That was my first thought as well. There are tons of file sharing services that already exist, but I think their advantage here is allowing people to send files larger than 20GB. Using DropBox, the limit is 20GB or smaller.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  At some point, it has to be cheaper and logistically simpler to transfer ownership and not transport the bits. Or the old fallback: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. - Andrew S. Tanenbaum s/station wagon/"40 foot trailer";s/tapes/disks
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - davehorne 8y ago
    Absolutely we don't try to hide that information you can try out our file transfer calculator here https://www.masv.io/file-transfer-calculator/ https://www.masv.io/file-transfer-calculator/ - This compares MASV to shipping hard drives and uses real rates from the fedex api. The way I like to think of it is it's much more convenient to transfer online instead of shipping hard drives as there is just less to deal with and it's harder to scale. So if MASV is faster or not much longer then shipping a drive or hand delivering then it's time you can spend on taking on more projects.
- ca6d8815 8y ago
  Google Drive allows files up to 5TB https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en https://support.google.com/drive/answer/37603?hl=en but does not give any guarantee you will not breach some magical limits set. I guess MASV is transparent about file sizes (no limit) and bandwidth is the resource you pay for, so there is transparency on the SLA.
- davehorne 8y ago
  You got it. In general you can send as much or as little as you need with MASV because it's pay-as-you-go which means you don't have to manage fixed storage and it scales up and down with your work. If you don't use it the next month it costs nothing.
royjacobs 8y ago
It seems to be targeted at content creators that routinely have to send very large (~1TB) files. If Masv can do this in a fairly sane way, without issues like "whoops, failed at 99%, try again!" then that's quite a good niche to be in. Especially since there are plenty of post-production companies that host their own 'customer portal' where files can be uploaded/downloaded, which probably has plenty of security issues and so on. This can then be replaced by a branded Masv page, I guess?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- davehorne 8y ago
  Exactly correct.
davehorne 8y ago
It depends on which service you compare us to but you could almost think of us as the WeTransfer for large video sharing. We don't have any file size limits, we retain full folder structures and create dynamic zips designed for each target OS, there are no plugins, it's pay-as-you-go so it fits nicely in with project based businesses, custom branding sets us apart from some of the cloud sharing tools, and the interface is intentionally simple to use. We plan to integrate with video specific tools in the near future as well such as Adobe Premier, Final cut pro, etc.. which should make our positioning clearer. When your dealing with sending terabytes of data month small improvements in performance become much more important to your overall business scalability.

jermaustin1 8y ago

Do you chunk the upload so if I lose internet for a second, it can just upload the chunks that failed? This is an issue I have with one of my employees. They only get consumer Comcast, and the connection is crap. I ended up writing a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run. That said, I pay $20/mo for the file server (which i would no matter what) and it has 3TB of outbound bandwidth and unlimited inbound, and is less than 5% of your cost.

microcolonel 8y ago
> I ended up writing a bash script that will chunk and scp the files to a central server, and if it fails a chunk, it leaves it in the directory for her to manually re-run. Use Syncthing, it traverses NATs, it is trivial to set up, it is seemingly very secure by its nature, and crucially for you, it transfers in blocks. You can administer it through a web interface with credentials (or with none, if it's just listening on loopback).
- jermaustin1 8y ago
  I'll have to check that out. I was just desperate one afternoon after dropbox was failing to sync because of connectivity issues, and I knew bash just well enough to split, scp, rm, repeat.
  - rocmcd 8y ago
    You may also want to look into using rsync as an alternative to scp. rsync is much smarter about how it syncs data, so it should be better for your use case.
  - davrosthedalek 8y ago
    Look at rsync. rsync -avP file host:/path/on/host Repeat if it fails. It will not retransfer already transferred data.
- davehorne 8y ago

gruez 8y ago

>$0.15/GB that's pretty expensive

progx 8y ago
Worst case amazon price (uncompressed + Inter-Region cost + transfer acceleration) is around $0.12, so $0.03 for the Service
- Matheus28 8y ago
  AWS/GCP/Azure bandwidth is already incredibly overpriced. You can easily find $0.005/GB and less from other providers, if you’re only interested in server hosting. For many applications, you can host servers elsewhere while using AWS for S3, DynamoDB, etc.
  - davehorne 8y ago
    We wanted to stand up a high performance service to start and took on extra cost to do so. We intend to continuously optimize our system to maintain that performance but access it through more affordable options. Even just being smarter about how we spin up and down servers could reduce costs for us outside of also adding other providers to the mix. Ideally once we have some mass of users we will be able to get better pricing and optimize our cost further which should enable us to pass on savings.
- davehorne 8y ago
  Exactly correct we are running on Azure also so it's slightly more expensive. The idea is eventually as we load the service with users our cost will come down and we can pass some of those saving on to our users. We have built out a network that can run on any cloud so in the future we will be able to further optimize cost by finding less expensive routes that have the same level of performance.
adriansky 8y ago
Is this price for monthly bandwidth or for storage?

jedisct1 8y ago

Looks appealing, but when I click "Start free trial", nothing happens, except "ReferenceError: cli_show_cookiebar is not defined" in the console. Not a good start.

zhan_eg 8y ago
Didn't have issues with the starting the trial on FF 61 Beta, with uBlock and Privacy Badger enabled. The service looks fairly good, but the speeds are not impressive. It looks Azure is used (and you can test your speed on it here http://www.azurespeed.com/Azure/UploadLargeFile http://www.azurespeed.com/Azure/UploadLargeFile)
- davehorne 8y ago
  Just to be clear we are not just using the default Azure setup. We have our own proprietary TCP acceleration technology in use on the Azure network and have 9 servers globally enabling acceleration. This test just shows you regular upload to Azure not a routed upload through our network.
thecatspaw 8y ago
Might be an adblocker blocking a script?
davehorne 8y ago
Sorry about that we will look into it right away. The engineers building the web app are much better then my website coding. We will try to reproduce the issue and get it fixed + let you know.

stanfordkid 8y ago

This looks really well designed -- but the performance numbers seem slightly suspicious to me. Both Dropbox and Aspera do UDP + compression + retry so very curious to see how you are able to get such a drastic improvement -- are you using a special form of compression?

davehorne 8y ago
Hey! In terms of maxing out your bandwidth there are a few options. Aspera uses UDP which adds some overhead to the transfers and requires you to install plugins or software to connect both ends. The way we max out your bandwidth is by reducing the latency between you and the server closest to you then using javascript to push multiple TCP flows at the same time which also can effectively fill your pipe. On the download side of things we route the data across premium cloud networks and use TCP acceleration in the cloud to enable fast downloads. TCP acceleration tech only needs to be on the sending device so it requires no plugins on the download side versus UDP. Not having plugins is a big benefit though because there are less firewall concerns and it means you can use our service in more restrictive IT environments.

kyleperik 8y ago

How come we don't have a good P2P file transfer system that everyone can use now? Having a server sit in between just passing it along seems like a waste.

jchook 8y ago
BitTorrent is pretty popular.
jermaustin1 8y ago
I want as few inbound ports open as possible. I'm assuming so does every person. So the simplest solution is to instead we have 2 outbound connections that talk to a middleman. Are their better ways, of course, but this is simple to wrap your head around and can be accomplished by anyone with even the most basic technical understanding.

willejs 8y ago

Aspera uses UDP to work around issues sending large files over long distances on big pipes, which TCP usually isn't great for (1). How does MASV handle this over TCP? Do you have some 'tcp accelerators' in between or it is just heavily chunked content? 1. https://paulgrevink.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/about-long-fat-networks-and-tcp-tuning/ https://paulgrevink.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/about-long-fat-...

davehorne 8y ago
Yes to the TCP acceleration. Our parent company LiveQoS is a networking technology company. We use our own TCP acceleration software to enable faster downloads across the clouds. Upload acceleration is handled through chunking and by having many servers in major locations globally reducing latency.

zimbatm 8y ago

Can you talk a little bit about the implementation details? I assume that it's using WebRTC data channels to upload the file. WebRTC includes STUN / TURN to bypass firewalls so it makes it a great fit. My guess is that the performance comes from chunking the data and sending it through multiple data channels. The other performance is to bring the receiving client close to the sender to reduce ACK latencies. I don't think that WebRTC allows to develop custom UDP protocols.

davehorne 8y ago
Happy to. We are not using WebRTC. Uploads are accomplished by geo-locating the user to one of our 9 global servers closest to them then chunking the data and sending through multiple data channels using javascript in the browser. On the download side when a user initiates a download it geo-locates the downloader and calculates the optimal route across our cloud network. Our network then uses our own in-house TCP acceleration technology to stream the data quickly across the cloud and to push the data fast from our exit edge server to the end users location. We use a combination of parallel connections, TCP acceleration, premium middle mile networks, and reducing latency to maximize performance.

scarface74 8y ago

How is this better than CloudBerry + AWS S3? Cloudberry allows you to map a drive and makes an AWS S3 bucket look like a standard Windows drive. It also supports multi part upload and supports retrying failed chunks. It's intuitive, built on top of AWS and you can take advantage of all of the other AWS features -- i.e. send an email notification when a file is received, supports versioning, fine grained access control. as much storage space as your budget will allow etc. CloudBerry drive has a one time cost of $40.

halbritt 8y ago
CloudBerry is an application that needs to be installed on the client workstation, something which many corporate IT departments do not allow.
- scarface74 8y ago
  If you're working for a company whose business is to transfer massive files, the IT department should be more than willing to pay for CloudBerry. They would need to set up the AWS account and S3 permissions. It should be a lot easier sell to an IT department an AWS + Cloudberry solution than an unknown company's solution.
  - halbritt 8y ago
    My point was that a browser-only solution is more tenable than installing an application in many cases. I get files from customers in Fortune 100 companies and many of their IT departments absolutely prohibit the installation of something like Cloudberry. It was explained to me that getting IT to approve the installation of a particular application was a multi-month endeavor.
stephengillie 8y ago
Is there a way to transfer ownership of an S3 bucket? Like, can I upload a file in my AWS account, and by some means transfer the bucket and files to your AWS account? Without the actual data bits moving and incurring a bandwidth charge? That would be ideal for some scenarios.

auslander 8y ago

Tried to make sense of one their patents: - patents.google.com/patent/US8548003B2/en Data transmission units (data units) from the source network are received at an encoding component logically located between the endpoints. These first data units are subdivided into second data units and are transmitted to the destination network over the transport network. Also transmitted are encoded or extra second data units that allow the original first data units to be recreated even if some of the second data units are lost. These encoded second data units may be merely copies of the second data units transmitted, parity second data units, or second data units which have been encoded using erasure correcting coding. At the receiving endpoint, the second data units are received and are used to recreate the original first data units. Got brain damage. What, ffs, does it mean? Help :)

davehorne 8y ago
I'm just the marketing guy :) but I will ask the engineer who wrote it and get back to you.
- auslander 8y ago
  Please, do. I wonder if AWS with their aws s3 cp and linuxes with rsync are infringing this patent.
stephengillie 8y ago
Sounds like they cache your upload on a server physically near you, and use something like BitTorrent to haul it to a server physically near your destination. Sort of like a CDN for file transfers. This way they can reduce the number of hops (and potential bottlenecks) between their server and destination, maximizing bandwidth.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

FrozenVoid 8y ago

Why not use torrents? Its both cheaper and scales with the number of recipients.

davehorne 8y ago
Torrenting requires software and seeders which means your throttled by the seeding parties internet connection. Torrenting can be a good option but you can run into port issues or for restrictive IT policies it can be blocked. ISP's frequently throttle torrents as well. It all depends on what environment you have and the network of the recipient. MASV is intended to require nothing but a browser and enable transfers in a clean, easy to use user interface. In other words it's client-proof which many freelancers or service companies would understand it's not meant to be a replacement for major repeatable workflows that are happening from the same controlled networks it's meant for adhoc deliveries from on-set locations or project based work.