3 ms·
I'm definitely not the right person to ask, but: Archival/storage of video shouldn't be that costly. With 5400rpm drives (better for archival than more or les
by kick 7y ago
I'm definitely not the right person to ask, but:
Archival/storage of video shouldn't be that costly.
With 5400rpm drives (better for archival than more or less any other type of storage media, including faster hard drives), it looks like the going rate is about a United States cent per gigabyte. Two for 7200rpm drives from manufacturers that seem to produce the most reliable drives on the market, consumer-side.
A setup that could survive through a reasonable amount of drive failure, then, seems to be relatively inexpensive, so long as you're not trying to archive your video In The Cloud®.*
*Someone Else's Computer
- oefrha 7y agoStorage is cheap. It’s the delivery that’s costly.
- kick 7y agoDelivery being costly is a myth propagated by Big Cloud®. Any dollar store VPS that isn't DO will have more than enough for streaming video all day every day. That's irrelevant, though, given the person's question was about storage and archival.
- viraptor 7y agoIt all depends on the use-case/context. Hosting a single video with few concurrent views is cheaper to do on VPS. Hosting videos with short response time in any region, with high resiliency, etc. is likely cheaper to do on CDNs. It's not a myth. It's "general advice may not work for you".
- Const-me 7y ago> Hosting videos with short response time in any region Clouds are indeed selling that, but I think that's false advertisement. At least from here (western Balkans) it looks this way.
- viraptor 7y agoNot sure what you mean by false advertisement. Australia-Netherlands (common European pop) connection is often >300ms from a home connection. Home in Australia to Sydney pop is likely <10ms. It makes a massive difference with many small resources, or restarted transfers. That's just physics at some point.
- solarkraft 7y agoBut does it really? I can see why a large company wants to squeeze milliseconds out of asset delivery, but as a watcher of a small independent creator I would have no problem waiting a second for the video to start playing.
- rollcat 7y agoBackground: I run a live streaming start-up. Latency directly impacts bandwidth, which impacts quality, since all current-gen user-facing live streaming protocols that matter (HLS, DASH) are layered on top of HTTP (on top of TCP), and that's already the best trade-off for end-user delivery today. For VOD it's less of an issue since you can just maintain a larger buffer, but with live that's a trade-off with being closer to the live edge or choosing poorer quality. It works OK for some cases, it's bad for others (like sports, or when letters on the screen become illegible due to compression artifacts). Building your own CDN off of el cheapo VPSs is theoretically viable, the beauty of HLS and DASH is they're 100% plain old HTTP, so just drop Varnish, add GeoDNS on route53 and off you go. Actually I'd love to have the time to try that :)
- Const-me 7y ago> Not sure what you mean by false advertisement. Here, the roundtrip latency is ~14ms within the country (e.g. from here to capital city), and 40ms to the closest AWS or GCP datacenters (both are in Frankfurt).
- dannyw 7y agoI can get a 1gbps port from Online.net for $11/m with unmetered bandwidth. Delivery is cheap. Big clouds just mark it up by criminally high 500%+.