2 ms·
Hmm. Wow, looking at this, I'm honestly trying to figure out how instances generate revenue. It looks entirely like a sunk cost situation?! Video is definitely
by exikyut 6y ago
Hmm. Wow, looking at this, I'm honestly trying to figure out how instances generate revenue. It looks entirely like a sunk cost situation?!
Video is definitely a complex usecase to solve for - and YouTube sets the bar almost impossibly highly, storing multiple copies of videos to raise the chances that whatever you want to load is pulled from a cache in a PoP nearby.
It looks like PeerTube's approach is to distribute costs amongst whoever has the money to throw at hosting stuff they're interested in. Certainly one way to sidestep the need for advertising, but... ouch, it certainly makes the barrier to entry a bit high, and IMO lends quite a bias to the results as well.
- 2Gkashmiri 6y agoyes. you are right about that. the benefit of using peertube is at scale, it uses webtorrent tech and that results in massive distribution of bandwidth on the server. like i have seen live streaming screenshots where data from server was 1 GB and 12 GB from peers. Still you need a server that can handle users, p2p saving is secondary. i also found out about backblaze b2 and cloudflare bandwidth alliance where you pay for only b2 storage and cloudflare takes egress of data. if that works for peertube, that would be awesome. i will definitely set something up as a test in the coming days
- exikyut 6y agoAh, I see. Interesting! I'm very curious to hear about the results of the tests you speak of as well.