The 9 megabit problem (please read)
Monday, November 25, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Since we moved to the subscription system we've been able to directly see how much bandwidth is used by subscribers/customers versus non-customers/non-subscribers.
Specifically:
Anyone who has purchased Object Desktop or any Stardock product or a WinCustomize subscription or is an apprentice or higher goes to a different high speed server than those who have not.
The problem is, the people who have not bought anything at all are now consuming about 9 megabits per second.
That's 6 T1's being used by people who are essentially non-contributing bandwidth consumers.
That's why the "Server is busy" message is coming up more and more often for these guys.
As you can imagine, 6 T1's of bandwidth is expensive. Especially when, not to use too fine a point, being used largely by free-loaders.
I'm not sure what the solution is. If we cap it, the site becomes unbearably slow and we don't want to punish people who are just trying out this stuff (i.e. legitimately seeing what this is all about versus people who just want to leech off the bandwidth).
Any suggestions?
Specifically:
Anyone who has purchased Object Desktop or any Stardock product or a WinCustomize subscription or is an apprentice or higher goes to a different high speed server than those who have not.
The problem is, the people who have not bought anything at all are now consuming about 9 megabits per second.
That's 6 T1's being used by people who are essentially non-contributing bandwidth consumers.
That's why the "Server is busy" message is coming up more and more often for these guys.
As you can imagine, 6 T1's of bandwidth is expensive. Especially when, not to use too fine a point, being used largely by free-loaders.
I'm not sure what the solution is. If we cap it, the site becomes unbearably slow and we don't want to punish people who are just trying out this stuff (i.e. legitimately seeing what this is all about versus people who just want to leech off the bandwidth).
Any suggestions?
 |
|
Page 4 of 9 | |
|
|---|
pjpowell
Reply #63 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:49 AM
Reply #63 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:49 AM
JamMeister: Here's a really strange concept for you:
Most of the time I don't use any wallpaper at all.
There I said it. For the majority of the time I have no wallpaper. Why? Because it's covered up. Do my skins look silly without a wallpaper I can never see? I don't think so. I may be wrong however.
The other reason people are putting forward to get rid of walls from here is the fact that they are available at a million and 1 other places. I for one wouldn't be upset to see them go. However others would and running a site of this type is a matter of finding a compromise that is best for both the people paying the cash and the subscribers.
Frogboy is trying to find a way to provide all the stuff that is provided now in a better way. In order to test a theory you have to actually do something. He simply wants to shut off the wallpaper libraries for a short while to see if it makes a measurable difference. If it does then they can work out a way to have walls and still get a reasonable speed. Until they test the theory though nobody knows if it would make any difference or not. Save the crying and going off in a huff until after something has happened and it has been decided that it will stay that way.
Most of the time I don't use any wallpaper at all.
There I said it. For the majority of the time I have no wallpaper. Why? Because it's covered up. Do my skins look silly without a wallpaper I can never see? I don't think so. I may be wrong however.
The other reason people are putting forward to get rid of walls from here is the fact that they are available at a million and 1 other places. I for one wouldn't be upset to see them go. However others would and running a site of this type is a matter of finding a compromise that is best for both the people paying the cash and the subscribers.
Frogboy is trying to find a way to provide all the stuff that is provided now in a better way. In order to test a theory you have to actually do something. He simply wants to shut off the wallpaper libraries for a short while to see if it makes a measurable difference. If it does then they can work out a way to have walls and still get a reasonable speed. Until they test the theory though nobody knows if it would make any difference or not. Save the crying and going off in a huff until after something has happened and it has been decided that it will stay that way.
Lecrayon
Reply #64 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:00 AM
Reply #64 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:00 AM
I have my monitor above my TV 
I use wallpapers as decoration ! 
Some are pretty good as such.
I use wallpapers as decoration ! 
Some are pretty good as such.
Jafo
Reply #65 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:18 AM
Reply #65 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 7:18 AM
A few points....
It is always wise to read an entire thread before responding...particularly with 'important' subject matter.
Walls are as important to this site and to skinning as it is to the site's members.
Perhaps the 'best' way of limiting their impact on the site demands is to restrict their availability to the general public via the 'rating system' as that was its intent in the first place.
Limit what they can access to those with a score of an 'appropriate' level.
Whatever happens, the aim should be to attract more 'payers' to contribute to the site's viability, and do so without danger of being 'sucked dry' by non-contributing free-loaders.
The annoying factor in all this is that there must be a fair proportion of downloaders who are using Warez products, which, IF they'd paid for them, would be both contributing, AND free of any imposed limitations and wouldn't be pestering us with 'you pricks...why I gotta pay?'.
The mention of a 'valid' registration as access to the site I guess is already handled with the product purchase anyway....so it's really about who is legitimately downloading skins.....and sections that don't have that sort of 'control', such as walls just need an alternate criteria for limitating bandwidth use.
One thing I would 'like' to see is perhaps a cycling of the walls......as new, highly regarded walls are added, older lower 'rated' ones just fall off the perch.
I once suggested at Devart....with all the utter crap that is uploaded there in the guise of 'art' that to keep a handle on the stupid scale of the database all they needed to do was have a finite limit on the number of submissions by any one artist....even grading THAT through contribution....pay more, get more uploads.
Now, if everyone can stop chucking wobblies and talk reason....[this IS 'talk', not action], then perhaps a logical, clever solution will be found...
It is always wise to read an entire thread before responding...particularly with 'important' subject matter.
Walls are as important to this site and to skinning as it is to the site's members.
Perhaps the 'best' way of limiting their impact on the site demands is to restrict their availability to the general public via the 'rating system' as that was its intent in the first place.
Limit what they can access to those with a score of an 'appropriate' level.
Whatever happens, the aim should be to attract more 'payers' to contribute to the site's viability, and do so without danger of being 'sucked dry' by non-contributing free-loaders.
The annoying factor in all this is that there must be a fair proportion of downloaders who are using Warez products, which, IF they'd paid for them, would be both contributing, AND free of any imposed limitations and wouldn't be pestering us with 'you pricks...why I gotta pay?'.
The mention of a 'valid' registration as access to the site I guess is already handled with the product purchase anyway....so it's really about who is legitimately downloading skins.....and sections that don't have that sort of 'control', such as walls just need an alternate criteria for limitating bandwidth use.
One thing I would 'like' to see is perhaps a cycling of the walls......as new, highly regarded walls are added, older lower 'rated' ones just fall off the perch.
I once suggested at Devart....with all the utter crap that is uploaded there in the guise of 'art' that to keep a handle on the stupid scale of the database all they needed to do was have a finite limit on the number of submissions by any one artist....even grading THAT through contribution....pay more, get more uploads.
Now, if everyone can stop chucking wobblies and talk reason....[this IS 'talk', not action], then perhaps a logical, clever solution will be found...
paxx
Reply #67 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:35 AM
Reply #67 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:35 AM
A couple of things...
Dark_Seraphim: you may find that full screen wallpapers (but not tilable ones)actually eats more RAM than most Windowblinds skins does.
Static: the difference is that Wallpapers don't encourage anybody to buy anything. While if you limit access to Stardock product skins, it could (and would) impact on future Stardock apps sales. Why would anybody buy a product if they don't have access to the skins?
But I think most of the problem could be solved two ways: limit the file size of the downloads. This can be done by putting a cap on the file size of the wallpapers uploaded. Maybe we should require wallpapers to be JPGs and not BMPs. Maybe we could program the site so that each resolution is a separate file, but grouped on the same Wallpaper page. People would just choose which resolution to download, and voilà! Wold save a lot of bandwidth I'm sure. That's applicable to wallpapers and to DX themes.
Also, limit the downloads for non-registered users. Not in MB, but in number of downloads. Say 5 downloads per day max. Or less; maybe 2 or 3 is enough.
Another idea. How about when people install a trial version of WB, DX or any other SD app, they are provided with a unique key number that allows them to download here for a limited 30 days. After which they either need to subscribe to the site or purchase the product.
Dark_Seraphim: you may find that full screen wallpapers (but not tilable ones)actually eats more RAM than most Windowblinds skins does.
Static: the difference is that Wallpapers don't encourage anybody to buy anything. While if you limit access to Stardock product skins, it could (and would) impact on future Stardock apps sales. Why would anybody buy a product if they don't have access to the skins?
But I think most of the problem could be solved two ways: limit the file size of the downloads. This can be done by putting a cap on the file size of the wallpapers uploaded. Maybe we should require wallpapers to be JPGs and not BMPs. Maybe we could program the site so that each resolution is a separate file, but grouped on the same Wallpaper page. People would just choose which resolution to download, and voilà! Wold save a lot of bandwidth I'm sure. That's applicable to wallpapers and to DX themes.
Also, limit the downloads for non-registered users. Not in MB, but in number of downloads. Say 5 downloads per day max. Or less; maybe 2 or 3 is enough.
Another idea. How about when people install a trial version of WB, DX or any other SD app, they are provided with a unique key number that allows them to download here for a limited 30 days. After which they either need to subscribe to the site or purchase the product.
feline
Reply #68 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:38 AM
Reply #68 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:38 AM
question 1:
these 6 T1's worth of bandwidth being used by non contributing visitors.
how is this usage distributed?
are we talking 90% of the bandwidth by 3 people?
is it even possible to measure this?
*IF* you could say "these 20 users who have never purchased any software are using 80% of the bandwidth" then who is going to complain about capping those accounts???
question 2:
are there any stats on how the bandwidth is being used per user?
do these users have a slow trickle of downloads, or is it 50 skins in one day, and then nothing for 6 weeks?
it seems to me that if the bulk of the problem is heavy spikes of downloads from a few accounts, then simply capping the downloads per day (suggested above at 5) should help a lot!
this lets people with trial versions look at what is available.
for WB and DX, how many skins do you need to try out the trial version? 5? 10? 50?
are there a few very heavy users consuming most of this bandwidth?
if so, i would presume they would have to have broadband connections. on my 56k modem i (apparently) get a new IP number every-time i reconnect. i am told broadband connections tend to have fixed IP numbers.
so by "simply" looking for multiple accounts from the same IP number, you can watch out for people interested in getting around any download caps, who are downloading excessive amounts.
after all, ever tried to eat up 6 T1's worth of bandwidth with a 56k modem?
ps. IESpell found no real spelling errors in ALL of this!
feline is now going to go and panic in a dark corner!
these 6 T1's worth of bandwidth being used by non contributing visitors.
how is this usage distributed?
are we talking 90% of the bandwidth by 3 people?
is it even possible to measure this?
*IF* you could say "these 20 users who have never purchased any software are using 80% of the bandwidth" then who is going to complain about capping those accounts???
question 2:
are there any stats on how the bandwidth is being used per user?
do these users have a slow trickle of downloads, or is it 50 skins in one day, and then nothing for 6 weeks?
it seems to me that if the bulk of the problem is heavy spikes of downloads from a few accounts, then simply capping the downloads per day (suggested above at 5) should help a lot!
this lets people with trial versions look at what is available.
for WB and DX, how many skins do you need to try out the trial version? 5? 10? 50?
are there a few very heavy users consuming most of this bandwidth?
if so, i would presume they would have to have broadband connections. on my 56k modem i (apparently) get a new IP number every-time i reconnect. i am told broadband connections tend to have fixed IP numbers.
so by "simply" looking for multiple accounts from the same IP number, you can watch out for people interested in getting around any download caps, who are downloading excessive amounts.
after all, ever tried to eat up 6 T1's worth of bandwidth with a 56k modem?
ps. IESpell found no real spelling errors in ALL of this!
feline is now going to go and panic in a dark corner!
feline
Reply #69 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:47 AM
Reply #69 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:47 AM
several people, including paxx, have made the point about wallpaper sizes.
personally at work i use 800*600, and at home 1024*768
downloading a zip file holding 3 sizes, only one of which i am ever going to use, seems very wasteful. the extra sizes simply get deleted *sigh*
however, if there are different sizes of the same pic in a zip file, does the compression process find a lot of duplicate data, and do massive compression?
what compression setting is used to create the zip files? the default setting is "normal" in winzip. there are two (perhaps more) more enthusiastic settings, which should produce smaller zips if used.
personally at work i use 800*600, and at home 1024*768
downloading a zip file holding 3 sizes, only one of which i am ever going to use, seems very wasteful. the extra sizes simply get deleted *sigh*
however, if there are different sizes of the same pic in a zip file, does the compression process find a lot of duplicate data, and do massive compression?
what compression setting is used to create the zip files? the default setting is "normal" in winzip. there are two (perhaps more) more enthusiastic settings, which should produce smaller zips if used.
KarmaGirl
Reply #70 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:52 AM
Reply #70 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:52 AM
Listen to the Jafo. When did any Stardockian or WC admin say we were deleting a section? When did we claim that Wallpaper artists were second rate? The only thing that was mentioned was that Frogboy was going to do a *test* to see what disabling the Wallpapers for non-paying/contributing visitors would do. That was it.
Sometimes I wonder why Brad even brings up these points. I think he is insane. Every time that he tries to make things better on the site and *asks* opinions of the members of the site, it turns into some sort of "do that and I'll never come back here again" type thread. Maybe he should start running this site like all the others and not ask opinions from the users?
Yep, I meant all that to sound cynical. I don't say much that is negative on this site, but this type of "discussion" really gets my undies in a bunch. We keep trying to make this site better and ask questions on what people think, then we get kicked in the shins. All I ask is: please start by reading the whole thread, then really think about your answer before posting it.
Sometimes I wonder why Brad even brings up these points. I think he is insane. Every time that he tries to make things better on the site and *asks* opinions of the members of the site, it turns into some sort of "do that and I'll never come back here again" type thread. Maybe he should start running this site like all the others and not ask opinions from the users?
Yep, I meant all that to sound cynical. I don't say much that is negative on this site, but this type of "discussion" really gets my undies in a bunch. We keep trying to make this site better and ask questions on what people think, then we get kicked in the shins. All I ask is: please start by reading the whole thread, then really think about your answer before posting it.
Jafo
Reply #71 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:00 AM
Reply #71 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:00 AM
Jafo has visions of KarmaGirl's 'undies in a bunch'...and is uncertain whether it's a good thing or a bad thing....
JamMeister33
Reply #72 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:15 AM
Reply #72 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:15 AM
I rather resent this "crying" reference made by pipowell. If you don't use a wall that's your business, but you are most certainly in the minority there in my opinion. I always zip my files at maximum compression by the way, trying to keep them
as small as possible. Maybe just two sizes in the zip instead of three would help.
as small as possible. Maybe just two sizes in the zip instead of three would help.
Lecrayon
Reply #73 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:16 AM
Reply #73 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:16 AM
I loved this initiative of Frogboy for collecting input. Paxx has a point with the wallpaper sizes. If you just could click on the WP of your choice and then click on one of the available sizes that should cut down traffic a lot.
KarmaGirl: reading is difficult I don't think this *test* is useful..there must be other ways to tackle traffic jam. If you want to try something, try something first that doesn't cut out visitors immediately. Try to divide/spread traffic first, before you start cutting traffic down to potential customers.
KarmaGirl: reading is difficult
I don't think this *test* is useful..there must be other ways to tackle traffic jam. If you want to try something, try something first that doesn't cut out visitors immediately. Try to divide/spread traffic first, before you start cutting traffic down to potential customers.
JamMeister33
Reply #74 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:20 AM
Reply #74 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:20 AM
I really like that idea Lecrayon about picking the available size.
Aqua.
Reply #75 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:26 AM I don't know why anyone would want to actually delete the wallpapers section. Just:
1) Make it available to members only.
2) Restrict what registered users can view to 8 or above.
3) Make everything available to those who have either payed or have something in their library.
Reply #75 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:26 AM
I don't know why anyone would want to actually delete the wallpapers section. Just:1) Make it available to members only.
2) Restrict what registered users can view to 8 or above.
3) Make everything available to those who have either payed or have something in their library.
Koasati
Reply #76 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:33 AM
Reply #76 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:33 AM
Maybe we should require wallpapers to be JPGs and not BMPs.
I've never really understood why walls needed to other than jpg.......... yes, bmp is better quality, but unless you plan to zoom in on the wall, jpg works just fine, doesn't it?
Maybe we could program the site so that each resolution is a separate file, but grouped on the same Wallpaper page. People would just choose which resolution to download, and voilà!
This is how I do it on my site, you see a thumbnail with 3 sizes available beneath. You need only download what you intend to use.
I've never really understood why walls needed to other than jpg.......... yes, bmp is better quality, but unless you plan to zoom in on the wall, jpg works just fine, doesn't it?
Maybe we could program the site so that each resolution is a separate file, but grouped on the same Wallpaper page. People would just choose which resolution to download, and voilà!
This is how I do it on my site, you see a thumbnail with 3 sizes available beneath. You need only download what you intend to use.
JamMeister33
Reply #77 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:38 AM
Reply #77 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:38 AM
That thumbnail idea is an excellent idea Koasati, I like that!
Koasati
Reply #78 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:40 AM
Reply #78 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:40 AM
oh yeah..... about the comments concerning affecting the top download, top author counts................ People are too hung up on 'popularity'/'downloads'........ jeeperz folks, are you skinning for yourself, and sharing, or are you trying to get your egos stroked?
JamMeister33
Reply #79 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:45 AM
Reply #79 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 9:45 AM
I also think that self moderation could be a factor, if a certain picture isn't doing well the author could remove it and make room for the more popular ones.
T-Man
Reply #80 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:06 AM
Reply #80 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:06 AM
In regards to wallpaper sizes I believe that we started requiring people to put them into one file because we were seeing multiple entries for essentially the same image. So we were trying to cut down on the number of entries.
So yes, making so that multiple sizes could be downloaded under 1 entry would be the way to go. The downside to that is time. Our libraries are in need a major database overhaul before we do any more coding around them. The problem at the moment is time. So this is a good suggestion but would take some time before we can get it implemented. So to alleviate some of the bandwidth other measures would need to be implented.
I personally like the idea that you would need to create an account before you can download. And if you are a non-paying/participating member then you have a cap of like 5-10 downloads per day.
So yes, making so that multiple sizes could be downloaded under 1 entry would be the way to go. The downside to that is time. Our libraries are in need a major database overhaul before we do any more coding around them. The problem at the moment is time. So this is a good suggestion but would take some time before we can get it implemented. So to alleviate some of the bandwidth other measures would need to be implented.
I personally like the idea that you would need to create an account before you can download. And if you are a non-paying/participating member then you have a cap of like 5-10 downloads per day.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:09 AM
Rule #1 - Never chase visitors or customers away
Rule #2 - Never chase contributing members away
Current situation:
#1 Paying members / customers are on a seperate fast server ( As I have understood it)
#2 Non-paying visitors / members fight for access on the other servers
Problem: Too many people try to download at the same time, so they get server busy.
How to tackle it?
Look at the cause of the problem.
Cause: It's mostly DesktopX, WindowBlinds, and Wallpapers. Some iconpackager. The rest is fairly modest.
The dumbest you can do is get rid of those sections, it works contraproductive with rule #1 and #2. Also getting rid of one of those sections would be contraproductive. If you are so keen on deleting sections, delete those who aren't clicked on much. (That won't help you though).
The easiest way is to buy more bandwidth, but blind expansion is not wise either. Hmmm.
So, what can you do? Well, for a start analyze how the bandwidth is used per section. Maybe you can assign average used download bandwidth per section? I mean if a server busy occurs let it occur where the least traffic goes to. That is, if that is codeable.
If you want to cap visitors, then cap them per downloads per section, and not downloads in MB. Cap them with the average of downloads per section per day. That will diminish the ones that slurp more than average. Give them the opportunity to subscribe or buy a stardock product when they exceed the average cap, or thank them for their interest in wincusto and ask them to come back the day after.
That's what I am thinking.