I was told by a large CDN provider that if I purchase my bandwidth on a per Mbps model, rather than a per GB basis, my net cash outflow will be reduced. How is this possible, and is it appropriate for us?
Background
We operate a Flash casual games business and deliver content globally to about 15 million people monthly. The content we serve are either small files of 50K to 200KB, or larger non-streamed content like Flash SWF files, of 5-10MB in size.
Our requirement is about 30TB of content to be served per month. That is apparently equivalent to having a 100Mbps requirement per month.
The proposition to me is, if I were to stop paying on a annual commit of 360TB of data, but sign on a 100Mbps requirement, the equivalent rate to me would be significantly cheaper, therefore dropping my costs.
How is this possible? I’m thinking they negotiate with backbone providers on speeds?
Is overage something I should worry about? i.e. what if traffic surges and content is requested > 100Mbps ?
Is our content best served on a Mbps – given it’s not streamed, I’m thinking not.
Would love to hear from anyone who’s had past experiences using either form of billing.
Is our
How is this possible?
Santanu Pathak
Obviously CDN’s have negotiations with ISPs on speeds.. by reducing the upstream bandwidth.. using the bandwidth option actually reduces the cost.. however, the rate of change of the content and no of pull from the origin as actually the question.. however even if the rate of content change is high it would not cross the comparison with the GB or Mbps..
Next.. even before reaching 100Mbps of bw util.. the users will start seeing issues with the content.. however, generally a monitor to check the b/w cap should be used.. an ISP generally reduces the cap to the CDN.and its the CDN providers responsibility to keep an eye on that..