3 ms·

I think the pendulum DID swing, as The Cloud became more popular and connections became radically asymmetric with very slow upload.

by rconti 3y ago

candiddevmike 3y ago
10 Mbps upload is plenty fast for hosting things like websites and web apps.
- rconti 3y ago
  10Mbps is barely enough to send the ACKs on a 250Mbps download. Maybe it's fine as a dedicated connection, but you might not want to be hosting anything on your home connection.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  Not really. For my daughter's birthday, I put together an album of around 100 photos to share with family. That came out to 386 MB at default quality settings in digikam, which would take 5 minutes to download at 10 Mb/s. Even for smaller things where maybe I share 10-15 photos from a day out, that'd take ~30 seconds to load. I can drop the quality just for sharing on the web, but I'd rather be able to just share it. Likewise with backups, each photo is ~40 MB for RAW files, so 10 Mb/s can take all day to backup a couple hundred photos. That's without even getting into video. Off the camera, video files are ~200 Mb/s. Backups of the raw footage take forever, and sharing at the original quality is a non-starter.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    > 10 Mbps upload is plenty fast for hosting things like websites and web apps. I made no guarantees for file sharing or backups...
    - ndriscoll 3y ago
      I would consider things like home movies and photo albums to be one of the main use-cases for a personal website (photo albums are pretty much what everyone in my social network uses Facebook for today). If you restrict to text websites, we could all get by with < 1Mb/s internet connections. Backups are something else sure, but for personal hosting, the world is easier if you can just plop photos into a directory with maybe a simple html (or in my case xml) file and not deal with things like generating thumbnails or different quality settings.
hinkley 3y ago
The story with the Cloud is that everything is distributed. The facts on the ground are that everything is more consolidated than it has ever been, mostly into 3 companies, and dozens of datacenters each. I don't think the Internet has been this small in that respect since the early 90's.

I think the pendulum DID swing, as The Cloud became more popular and connections became radically asymmetric with very slow upload.

by rconti 3y ago

I think the pendulum DID swing, as The Cloud became more popular and connections became radically asymmetric with very slow upload.

candiddevmike 3y ago

10 Mbps upload is plenty fast for hosting things like websites and web apps.

rconti 3y ago
10Mbps is barely enough to send the ACKs on a 250Mbps download. Maybe it's fine as a dedicated connection, but you might not want to be hosting anything on your home connection.
ndriscoll 3y ago
Not really. For my daughter's birthday, I put together an album of around 100 photos to share with family. That came out to 386 MB at default quality settings in digikam, which would take 5 minutes to download at 10 Mb/s. Even for smaller things where maybe I share 10-15 photos from a day out, that'd take ~30 seconds to load. I can drop the quality just for sharing on the web, but I'd rather be able to just share it. Likewise with backups, each photo is ~40 MB for RAW files, so 10 Mb/s can take all day to backup a couple hundred photos. That's without even getting into video. Off the camera, video files are ~200 Mb/s. Backups of the raw footage take forever, and sharing at the original quality is a non-starter.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  > 10 Mbps upload is plenty fast for hosting things like websites and web apps. I made no guarantees for file sharing or backups...
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    I would consider things like home movies and photo albums to be one of the main use-cases for a personal website (photo albums are pretty much what everyone in my social network uses Facebook for today). If you restrict to text websites, we could all get by with < 1Mb/s internet connections. Backups are something else sure, but for personal hosting, the world is easier if you can just plop photos into a directory with maybe a simple html (or in my case xml) file and not deal with things like generating thumbnails or different quality settings.

hinkley 3y ago

The story with the Cloud is that everything is distributed. The facts on the ground are that everything is more consolidated than it has ever been, mostly into 3 companies, and dozens of datacenters each. I don't think the Internet has been this small in that respect since the early 90's.