That’s ~2.4Gbit/s. There are multiple residential ISPs in my area offering 10Gbit/s up for around $40/month, so even if we assume the bandwidth is significantly oversubscribed a single cheap residential internet plan should be able to handle that bandwidth no problem (let alone a for a datacenter setup which probably has 100Gbit/s links or faster)
Yeah, thats almost 150% more than my (theoretical) bandwidth at home (Gbps but I live alone & just don’t want to pay much), and that is just assuming constant workload (peaks must be massive).
This is indeed considerate, yet hopefully solvable. It certainly is from the link perspective.
50MB/s is like 0.4Gbit/s. Idk where you are, but in Switzerland you can get a symmetric 10Gbit/s fiber link for like 40 bucks a month as a residential customer. Considering 100Gbit/s and even 400Gbit/s links are already widely deployed in datacenter environments, 300MB/s (or 2.4Gbit/s) could easily be handled even by a single machine (especially since the workload basically consists of serving static files).
Ten gig fibre for internal networking, enterprise SFP+ network hardware, big meaty 72 TB FreeBSD ZFS file server with plenty of cache, backup power supply and UPS
The tech they require really isn’t expensive anymore
How are they so small and underfunded? My hobby home servers and internet connection satisfy their simple requirements
800TB of bandwidth per month?
That’s ~2.4Gbit/s. There are multiple residential ISPs in my area offering 10Gbit/s up for around $40/month, so even if we assume the bandwidth is significantly oversubscribed a single cheap residential internet plan should be able to handle that bandwidth no problem (let alone a for a datacenter setup which probably has 100Gbit/s links or faster)
That averages out to around 300 megabytes per second. No way anyone has that at home comercially.
One of the best comercial fiber connections i ever saw will provide 50 megabytes per second upload, best effort that is.
No way in hell you can satisfy that bandwidth requirement at home. Lets not mention that they need 3 nodes with such bw.
Yeah, thats almost 150% more than my (theoretical) bandwidth at home (Gbps but I live alone & just don’t want to pay much), and that is just assuming constant workload (peaks must be massive).
This is indeed considerate, yet hopefully solvable. It certainly is from the link perspective.
50MB/s is like 0.4Gbit/s. Idk where you are, but in Switzerland you can get a symmetric 10Gbit/s fiber link for like 40 bucks a month as a residential customer. Considering 100Gbit/s and even 400Gbit/s links are already widely deployed in datacenter environments, 300MB/s (or 2.4Gbit/s) could easily be handled even by a single machine (especially since the workload basically consists of serving static files).
So I have to move to Swiss then, got it.
Probably not one person, but that could be distributed.
Like folding at home :D
On my current internet plan I can move about 130TB/month and that’s sufficent for me, but I could upgrade plan to satisfy the requirement
Your home server might have the required bandwidth but not requisite the infra to support server load (hundreds of parallel connections/downloads).
Bandwidth is only one aspect of the problem.
Ten gig fibre for internal networking, enterprise SFP+ network hardware, big meaty 72 TB FreeBSD ZFS file server with plenty of cache, backup power supply and UPS
The tech they require really isn’t expensive anymore