> For a download or a streaming site, you probably want to look at a CDN solution anyway. There's options like CloudFlare, NetDNA and others that let you pay per GB or buy bandwidth in bulk that may reduce your costs and will definitely increase customer performance and server capacity.
Thanks. If I have a group of machines hooked-up to a sufficiently fat pipe calculalated on a genuine need-this-much basis rather than oversold, why do I need cdn? At rates I've seen, cdn is still considerably more expensive than the 10-12 servers this should eventually need.
it's not an argumentative question, simply that on what I know (not very much) I don't rate the cdn advantage of being either necessary or appropriately beneficial relative to price.
>Akamai? CDN used by a lot of major companies.
Thanks. I'm aware of them/that, and as explained above aren't convinced of cdn.
I believe that in many cases, corporate/enterprise-level hostin is over-specified, driven by the usual high-budget availability/wastage and 'well,that's what everybody else does and so it's clearly the safe choice and thus I'll be less likely to get fired through choosing that'.
As an example, I'm just not interested in paying Amazon S3-type pricing.
CDNs typically have the advantage of dynamically serving the file from the geographically nearest server to provide optimum speed and latency. They'll typically hold the file on multiple points of presence around the globe. They'll never be cheaper than bandwidth you'll get from a dedicated server.
Thanks. It's that significant price differential that's the problem.
Originally Posted by EastCoast