Crystal Web (NEW ISP) ADSL Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pho3nix said:
Sorry I haven't been following the thread.

Couple Questions :

1. Do you work on a star system or what is the arrangment on the uncapped accounts? I download more than I stream.
2. Pro-Rated billing. Remember a while back this was still being investigated. Possible now?
3. News Server still available?
4. Are there any issues with YouTube or Gaming at this current moment in time?
Click to expand...
No star system - Fusion accounts work on an uncapped and unshaped experience, at 100 gigs (200 on 20Mbps) shaping against large downloads starts
Prorata from the middle of the month but there is also a minimum amount for the month - will need to check details
Yep news server is still available
No issues that we are aware of outside of something temperamental in the Eastern Cape.
 
slasherjdc said:
Raws are preferable......if you use codecs court can argue that it has been tampered with :/ (the final result may be
"compressed" but what you are really doing is completely reencoding every frame...which is basically editing.)

also even if you did want to use a codec, encoding 25gbs/d(let alone per hour...) will kill the lifespan of your CPU.
1hr of encoding is much heavier on a pc than 1day of gaming :(.( it will also take 3-4 hours to encode 1 hr of video if you don't want insane quality loss.)
Click to expand...
encoding doesn't pose any legal problems if done in a proper and consistent manner

the reality is that these guys need to do some out of the box thinking because the budget is likely to be a little tighter than large corporate stupidity allows for. My general impression though is that a SAN cluster of consumer grade hardware with the correct configuration - and using iSCSI - is the best bet actually
 
saa044 said:
This is the head department against poaching in our country, I hope they fork out the right amount of cash.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine they will literally shyte themselves when they see what the storage will cost them if they want live access to the data....

It might even pay to investigate some sort of AWS type of solution for this.... I'm just not sure of the storage costs in AWS.

**EDIT** It seems as if some parts of AWS might actually be "cost effective" for what they might be trying to do...

at least from an archival point of view, Glacier Storage could be very effective, at a cost of 1c US per GB per month
 
Last edited:
ToxicBunny said:
I can only imagine they will literally shyte themselves when they see what the storage will cost them if they want live access to the data....

It might even pay to investigate some sort of AWS type of solution for this.... I'm just not sure of the storage costs in AWS.

**EDIT** It seems as if some parts of AWS might actually be "cost effective" for what they might be trying to do...

at least from an archival point of view, Glacier Storage could be very effective, at a cost of 1c US per GB per month
Click to expand...

Glacier is the perfect AWS solution. 250TB will cost around R30k per month in storage, and then other charges apply only for access.
 
Last edited:
Crystal Web said:
Glacier is the perfect AWS solution.
Click to expand...

the other advantage is that a fee structure per gig of later access can be smacked onto this so it becomes proper costs in litigation etc ...

However AWS T&Cs will need to be checked and double checked
 
ToxicBunny said:
Wow... they agree with me, to a point ... I'm amazed :p
Click to expand...
if AWS are game it could be set up as a wonderful service - you have a fee structure when the data needs to be collected. Not sure whether you'll be able to get them on board though. Also before archiving you might need to do some processing of data requiring line access.

my thinking though is apart from the longer term storage and keeping it live building a SAN out of cheaper hardware and deploying iSCSI is the way to go. In fact although you'll need to set up a "data centre" you don't need to go to the same sort of costs level as co-location facilities tend to and you can actually look at installation at a place where you can do things for cheap (a little town in the Free State) and use a single fibre connection - I know an ISP that can help ...
 
Have you officially launched? Looking for a spare capped account...if the experience is good I may switch ISPs
 
Paul Hjul said:
if AWS are game it could be set up as a wonderful service - you have a fee structure when the data needs to be collected. Not sure whether you'll be able to get them on board though. Also before archiving you might need to do some processing of data requiring line access.

my thinking though is apart from the longer term storage and keeping it live building a SAN out of cheaper hardware and deploying iSCSI is the way to go. In fact although you'll need to set up a "data centre" you don't need to go to the same sort of costs level as co-location facilities tend to and you can actually look at installation at a place where you can do things for cheap (a little town in the Free State) and use a single fibre connection - I know an ISP that can help ...
Click to expand...

At the type of volumes that saa044 is talking, AWS wouldn't even bat an eyelid, it would be a relatively standard thing for them I would guess....

But yeah, a commodity hardware type of SAN in a random location with a fibre line would def do the job for the immediate retrieval parts of the data, and would probably be relatively cost effective as well, if built the correct way....
 
ToxicBunny said:
At the type of volumes that saa044 is talking, AWS wouldn't even bat an eyelid, it would be a relatively standard thing for them I would guess....

But yeah, a commodity hardware type of SAN in a random location with a fibre line would def do the job for the immediate retrieval parts of the data, and would probably be relatively cost effective as well, if built the correct way....
Click to expand...
its not the size of data at issue - less than a petabyte for goodness sake ;) - but rather the fact that on an access costs model AWS will be storing a lot of data without any guaranteed return. I'd check the terms for a minimum access threshold or whatever

in principle though because of the design of Glacier it might well be that AWS have worked out their storage system to be the sort of low cost design we are thinking of
 
Paul Hjul said:
its not the size of data at issue - less than a petabyte for goodness sake ;) - but rather the fact that on an access costs model AWS will be storing a lot of data without any guaranteed return. I'd check the terms for a minimum access threshold or whatever

in principle though because of the design of Glacier it might well be that AWS have worked out their storage system to be the sort of low cost design we are thinking of
Click to expand...

Given that the access turn around times on Glacier are 3 - 5 hours... I would assume that they're not designed to have an access component feature heavily in their income generation....
 
I suspect that it is a tape system with volume indexing and that they load to pull
the access costing component though could be an important part of the revenue maths

So for example using glacier to store 1 petabyte of call logs which will be accessed in part on 30 occasions at a 300 gigabytes a time is different revenue to storing half a petabyte which is never accessed.
 
Close to 300 ms to bbc.co.uk. Is this normal once you've burnt through the unshaped bandwidth?
 
From every bit of info I can see and find on the net.... it seems that the retrieval cost is negligible... I'm seeing figures of around $120 to access a Terabyte of data from Glacier which is peanuts....
 
zolly said:
Errrrr, I'm not sure what you mean. How can an IP use all your upload bandwidth?

I've tested my Afrihost account and that's working fine.
Click to expand...

In some random cases people who torrent for instance. Like I have every device in my home on a up and down qos script. All of them were calm meaning this is a external IP using my upload bandwidth for his own purposes.

Tracing route to jnb01s07-in-f3.1e100.net [74.125.233.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.254
2 821 ms 2018 ms 1226 ms 105.233.47.1
3 927 ms 1305 ms 1230 ms 196.6.121.198
4 1808 ms 2320 ms 1802 ms 72.14.220.38
5 1041 ms 1272 ms 1257 ms 72.14.237.239
6 1498 ms 1520 ms 1783 ms jnb01s07-in-f3.1e100.net [74.125.233.3]

Trace complete.

Look how insane my second hop is, that IP is hammering my IP with multiple connections, yet 3 devices in my household is still able to stream Netflix flawlessly.

Your Afrihost uses a different IP than CW. My bet is if you ask CW to renew your IP the problem will be gone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X