Good CDN Hosting?

[AdultNex]

I need a reasonably priced CDN for hosting non-streaming videos. Bandwidth is somewhere between the range of 200-300TB per month.

Can anyone make any recommendations? Thanks.

[MrCain]

Maxcdn.com

[Spudstr]

I got a CDN solution for you. Somewhere in the 2-5/Mbps range shot me a email or icq. [email protected]

[webairalex]

Hey AdultNex I will be happy to help you, please see my sig for all my info!

[mpahlca]

[email protected] Largest CDN in adult means the cheapest prices ;) we handle almost every large tube.

[Godsmack]

bump for Reflected

[Khesser]

Hey hit me up on either my ICQ or email and we'll put a great package together for you.

Thanks

[Poppy]

Hello AdultNex,

Before you make a decision on CDN, you should check out Brad Mitchell's new company, FastTCP.

Here is a demo link to test download speeds with FastTCP (acclerated) and without (unaccelerated) Demo

It is only $99/mo. per server to test out.

Feel free to reach out to me anytime to discuss.

[HomerSimpson]

Originally Posted by Poppy

Hello AdultNex,

Before you make a decision on CDN, you should check out Brad Mitchell's new company, FastTCP.

Here is a demo link to test download speeds with FastTCP (acclerated) and without (unaccelerated) Demo

It is only $99/mo. per server to test out.

Feel free to reach out to me anytime to discuss.

their demo speeds are ridiculously slow..

used amazon (for mainstream project) but they are expensive due the fact they charge per request too
using maxcdn right now and I'm very satisfied...

[ISPrime_dimi]

AdultNex, I sent you an email with info on our CDN. We'd love to work with you on this new project.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson

their demo speeds are ridiculously slow..

Honestly, I've never heard that before.. but you were right - thank you! That test server you downloaded from was in Phoenix and we just changed the links to MojoHost in Miami for downloads. I would politely ask you to re-test. No fault of that host, I just discovered in the last hour its our mistake for linking from that server. A developer was, well, developing and its config was whacked yesterday.

FastTCP is a fully compatible replacement for the TCP/ip stack on servers that use the following operating systems:

SLES10 SP4
CentOS/RedHat 5.7
CentOS/Redhat 5.4
Ubuntu 8.04
Ubuntu 10.04
FreeBSD 7.2

Specifically, what to compare using the download test at www.fasttcp.com/demonstration is not the exact throughput you receive, rather, the difference between a download accelerated that uses FastTCP versus the unaccelerated download that is regular TCP/ip.

In the coming days (when we update our website html), you will be able to do downloads from more than MojoHost in Miami; Quadranet (Dallas), Swiftco.net (Seattle), SecuredServers/Cavecreek (Phoenix), Webair (New York), LeaseWeb (Amsterdam), AdultEUHost (Amsterdam) and XRNetworks (Ashburn). While results vary from any point to any other point on the internet, FastTCP is always faster than regular TCP. In most instances this eliminates the download performance gap that people aim to accomplish by using a CDN.


Here is a better explanation from Chris O'Connell:

FastTCP Technical Overview

Christopher O?Connell
VP of Technology
[email protected]

At it?s heart, FastTCP is simply a more efficient and intelligent implementation of the TCP
stack. In normal conversation, when people discuss TCP they refer to a commonly used
implementation, TCP Reno1, or one of it?s variants. Despite the almost universal adoption
of Reno based variants, TCP exists as an abstract specification for the ?language? with
which systems communicate2. Because TCP is a data interchange specification, it is
possible for us to implement a superior algorithm that nonetheless meets the technical
requirements of TCP. Our version is called Fast.

The TCP specification, in general, has one missing piece -- intermediate routers cannot
explicitly tell the origin that data has been delayed due to network congestion. Instead,
routers delay data until their queue fills up, at which point packets are dropped.
Most current TCP implementations track only whether a packet successfully arrived -
- the single binary digit 0 or 1. As a result, current TCP implementations send data at
maximum speed until data is lost, at which point they must re-send the lost data, and
radically slow their sending rate until the connection recovers. In practice, however,
existing TCP implementations rarely run at full speed and spend most of the time in
some form of speed limited state.

In contrast, FastTCP keeps track of the time that it takes packets to arrive and computes
a delay factor. As intermediate queues fill, the delay factor increases. By using the many bits
of information contained in the delay calculation, FastTCP optimizes the connection
by slowing just enough that a catastrophic packet loss never occurs. FastTCP therefore
sends data at the maximum possible speed for the maximum amount of time.

Since FastTCP uses only information already available in the TCP specification, it is 100%
compatible with existing Internet infrastructure, and only needs installation on the
sending end -- intermediate hardware and software need not be modified. Furthermore,
as FastTCP does not cause the connection to cycle between too fast and too slow, it
actually helps intermediate routers perform more efficiently, by not overwhelming them
until the connection collapses and then slowing the connection.

-------------
We are happy to field any more questions on the product, wherever they come in from. Nearly every host familiar within "this" space will be offering this to you in the next 30-90 days. FastTCP is a separate company than MojoHost. If you don't want to talk to us at MojoHost or FastTCP directly, I encourage you to ask your existing host. Not all host company employees will be familiar but a majority of owner/operators have heard or are already in discussions to re-distribute.

Cheers,

Brad Mitchell

[raymor]

Expect a shit ton of problems with any of the newer well known CDNs. None of them comes anywhere near close to following the HTTP protocol. For example with one popular CDN, a request for http://google.com/q=sesame+street can instead return http://google.com/?q=two+girls+one+cup . The query string doesn't matter, they figure, they just ignore that part.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by raymor

Expect a shit ton of problems with any of the newer well known CDNs. None of them comes anywhere near close to following the HTTP protocol. For example with one popular CDN, a request for http://google.com/q=sesame+street can instead return http://google.com/?q=two+girls+one+cup . The query string doesn't matter, they figure, they just ignore that part.

Hi Ray

Give me a call when you get a chance. FastTCP will be awesome for your backup and replication services and I'd like to show that to you.

Brad

[webair]

If you are still in the parket for check out our speedtest page here:

http://speedtest.webair.com/

Feel free to contact me if you are interested in getting set up.

Thanks!

[asdfqwer]

Strange, but un-accelerated link loads faster for me that than the accelerated one.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by asdfqwer

Strange, but un-accelerated link loads faster for me that than the accelerated one.

That's awfully unusual, we've never seen an instance of that happening before. If you would like to take a minute out of your day and email Chris directly ([email protected]) or myself ([email protected]), we are chomping at the bit to observe such an occurance. There has never been one.. literally. FastTCP even statistically shows an improvement across local area networking because of its quicker handshake. Something must be mistaken, if you don't mind a few minutes of your time to follow up, I'm certain we can figure out what that was!

Cheers,

Brad

[BNMedia]

I'm seeing decent results here in the UK on those demo's.
Average of 2.5 MB/sec accelerated compared to 600 kB/sec non accelerated.
Nice job

[BNMedia]

I've used ISPrime and Webair CDN before, both with good results.

[webair]

Originally Posted by BNMedia

I've used ISPrime and Webair CDN before, both with good results.

Thanks BN!

That in conjunction with our latest FUSION IO release there really is no comparison:

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1057961

--------------

EXPERIENCE THE FASTEST DISK IN THE CLOUD - PERIOD! --- Brought to you by WEBAIR.COM

A true Game Changer - Webair's FusionCloud Servers provide the fastest disk speeds available in the Cloud - PERIOD.
Combining the advantages of Webair's Cloud Servers, including hardware, network, and disk redundancy, each FusionCloud server includes a FusionIO volume guaranteed to deliver 10,000 IOP/s!

Other cloud services include no more than 100 IOP/s which are not suitable for resource intensive applications such as database servers, video encoding, big data analytics, and industrial content delivery.


WEBAIR FusionCloud - BETTER, STRONGER, FASTER!

[HomerSimpson]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

I would politely ask you to re-test. No fault of that host, I just discovered in the last hour its our mistake for linking from that server.

That's more like it...
Works full speed
Even "un-accelerated" is pretty good...

I'll send you an email....
got some questions...

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Hi Ray

Give me a call when you get a chance. FastTCP will be awesome for your backup and replication services and I'd like to show that to you.

Brad

We'd definitely have a look at it if we were doing regular hosting, but 99% of our internet traffic is inbound. With speeds getting faster and faster, the higher bandwidth delay product is a problem for Reno and Tahoe based algorithms, so if we were sending data out we'd evaluate for stability. Aside from our internet traffic, we have our SAN and over the short, fast segments cubic works fine for our needs.

For non-geeks, what I just said is that Brad's FAST TCP is good for web sites.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by raymor

We'd definitely have a look at it if we were doing regular hosting, but 99% of our internet traffic is inbound. With speeds getting faster and faster, the higher bandwidth delay product is a problem for Reno and Tahoe based algorithms, so if we were sending data out we'd evaluate for stability. Aside from our internet traffic, we have our SAN and over the short, fast segments cubic works fine for our needs.

For non-geeks, what I just said is that Brad's FAST TCP is good for web sites.

This is the same tech that won the supercomputing bandwidth challenge and transferred the library of congress in like 15 minutes. It's not Reno or Tahoe based, read the white papers.. its FastTCP, the fastest stack on the market - patented and with stability that the others don't have. Since conception, nothing has been faster. Anyways, I know most of your data is inbound. That was kind of my point, its ideal for the sending end. Further, would reduce the total time on full restores dramatically. For that matter, the initial data copy time on multi-TB volumes would be cut to fractions helping you to go live faster and possibly the client for not changing their 95th. Even more interesting, in the event your cloned clients actually fail over their live traffic, now your server is more effectively serving the traffic because it has replaced TCP/IP with FastTCP. Anyways, happy to take the conversation offline. Cheers

Brad

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

This is the same tech that won the supercomputing bandwidth challenge and transferred the library of congress in like 15 minutes. It's not Reno or Tahoe based, read the white papers.. its FastTCP, the fastest stack on the market - patented and with stability that the others don't have. Since conception, nothing has been faster. Anyways, I know most of your data is inbound. That was kind of my point, its ideal for the sending end. Further, would reduce the total time on full restores dramatically. For that matter, the initial data copy time on multi-TB volumes would be cut to fractions helping you to go live faster and possibly the client for not changing their 95th. Even more interesting, in the event your cloned clients actually fail over their live traffic, now your server is more effectively serving the traffic because it has replaced TCP/IP with FastTCP. Anyways, happy to take the conversation offline. Cheers

Brad

Oh yes, it's fast, for sure. You've got a good thing there. As the speeds get faster, FAST TCP will be good for your customers because the bandwidth delay product keeps getting higher.

It could speed up our restores, I expect. I'll check into some things and get back to you offline. Or by bumping another thread that mentions both of our products. ;)

[asdfqwer]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

That's awfully unusual, we've never seen an instance of that happening before. If you would like to take a minute out of your day and email Chris directly ([email protected]) or myself ([email protected]), we are chomping at the bit to observe such an occurance. There has never been one.. literally. FastTCP even statistically shows an improvement across local area networking because of its quicker handshake. Something must be mistaken, if you don't mind a few minutes of your time to follow up, I'm certain we can figure out what that was!

Cheers,

Brad

Email sent.