[JDEV] File transfers

[Max Metral]

Just to clarify, many ISPs, including us, *do not pay* (directly) for bytes
between a dialup customer and "the Internet", but DO pay for bytes between
their servers and "the Internet".  Therefore, inband data transmission will
cost $$$ in the latter case, but not in the former.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tijl Houtbeckers [mailto:tijl at druppel.nl]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:10 AM
To: jdev at jabber.org
Subject: Re[4]: [JDEV] File transfers


---------- Original Message ----------

>I don't understand how we keep making the mistake in disputing that inband
>data as opposed to peer to peer IS BAD FOR THE SERVER HOSTER!!!! NO 
MATTER
>WHAT!!!  Whether it has user convenience features is another question, but
>this IS A FACT:
>	Inband data will cause an infinite amount more load on the Jabber
>server (i.e. ANY) than peer to peer data.

I don't think anyone is saying that inband data is better or cheaper for the
server 
hoster. There was someone who pointed out that if it doesn't cost ISPs more
or less 
data traffic if the data leaves their internal network through a jabber
server, through 
the router or HTTP proxy standing next to it... wich can hold true as
demonstrated in...

> In your first example actually it's even WORSE for the ISP because that
> person is going to stay online longer. (on the margin for sure)

.. example 1, let's assume Marco is using the jabber server provided by his
ISP. He 
uploads sends this file inband (just to make you yell again ;) to the Jabber
server 
located inside the ISPs network wich stores it and makes it available by
HTTP.
His friend then after downloading the other 3 files decides to download
Marco's file.
Does this cost Marco's ISP more external data traffic? No. Since there will
be less 
packetloss it will probably even cost them less traffic.

What about Marco's friend's ISP? well if Marco stays online longer, I'm sure
that in the 
Netherlands my ISP would be very happy if Marco stays online longer on his
56k 
dailup, since that means more profit for them. Marco's friend is happy,
because he 
can download Marco's file without congestion while Marco is happy he doesn't
even 
have to be online for all this. Marco's ISP is happy cause Marco choose them
to be his 
ISP cause they have such a great Jabber server.

It holds true though that jabber probably doesn't scale well enough to
handle big 
inband data very well, and that not every ISP has a jabber server, and that
even then 
their network structure will be different.. serverload will be higher etc.
etc. So you're all 
right (yay!) about how we shouldn't send 600MB avi files over the jabber
server you 
generously host on your 14k4 dailup line... or how we shouldn't send a 1 MB
file 
through the jabber.org server..

But.. it also holds true jabberd *can* handle small amounts of inband data,
that this 
can have distinct advantages over doing this out of band (some of wich OOB
can 
never have), that this is already being done, and will be done more in the
future. The 
question is, **do we make a standard for this**? 


_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
jdev at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev