website suggestion

felix9 · Post by **felix9** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:29 am

because the website takes up alot of bandwidth, a good idea would be to start using bit torrent. this allows people to host their own files and accelerates downloading when more people download the same file. Other sites I goto use bit torrent like onegaistudios.com .They host movie files too.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:37 am

This has been discussed before. Unfortunately, the bittorrent model doesn't scale well here.

It's been discussed and rejected multiple times in the past.

Kai Stromler · Post by **Kai Stromler** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:38 am

There have been several threads suggesting using BT here. This is the most recent and probably the most complete.

While BT can save bandwidth, its model does not really apply to the download pattern of AMVs. Even the most popular videos are barely downloaded frequently enough to see any net reduction; most videos on this site are downloaded less than five times per week. The problem is not that individual files are generating a lot of bandwidth; the problem is that a-m-v.org's users are generating a lot of files.

--K

YouTube · Post by **derobert** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:08 pm

Kai Stromler wrote:Even the most popular videos are barely downloaded frequently enough to see any net reduction;...

Damn, where did you get that data? Even I don't have that... (well, there are the raw logs, but I don't have anything to analyze them to answer that question)

Kai Stromler · Post by **Kai Stromler** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:34 pm

derobert wrote:
Kai Stromler wrote:Even the most popular videos are barely downloaded frequently enough to see any net reduction;...
Damn, where did you get that data?

This is based solely on anecdotal evidence, observed mostly by taking a look at the download totals for the weekly top star scale. There are only a few over 100, let alone over 200, in the last week, with only one close to 300 in the top 500. There is probably significant variance from week to week; I haven't done any formal analysis either. Even using stars = .75 x downloads [based on my own results], this still doesn't produce a huge number of downloads for the most popular videos.

Granted, the most popular videos may may have a star count as low as 50% of downloads, and the appearance of a rating in a particular week does not necessarily imply a download that week as opposed to any time before. However, for an off-the-cuff metric, it's probably accurate enough.

--K

Gemberkoekje · Post by **Gemberkoekje** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:56 pm

How about Edonkey?

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:52 pm

Gemberkoekje wrote:How about Edonkey?

What, are you proposing that the org run an eDonkey server? The org has rules about what can and can not be distributed here. Those would be more or less impossible to enforce with eDonkey. Besides, eDonkey tends to be slow.

Gemberkoekje · Post by **Gemberkoekje** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:47 am

True - however you might wanna devide it - get most files on a standard server - or your own - dont know... One thing i think it'll do is give people who dont know a-m-v.org but are just browsing into Edonkey (or Kazaa or any other filesharer for that matter) get more vids... Hey just brainstorming here

YouTube · Post by **derobert** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:51 pm

I need to actually analyze the download logs. Personally, I'm quite interested in knowing how big our hot set of videos is; if its relatively small (say, under 100GB) then we could cache those downloads onto much, much cheaper servers (because they'd only need a single IDE disk, vs. the 8 or 12 disk array).

We could also do things like geographically disperse those servers, etc.

bum · Post by **bum** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:36 pm

yeah it would be good to have a server in russia or asia somewhere, in case the riaa desides to bite.