dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
124
share rss forum feed

Seeley

join:2009-01-31
Eatontown, NJ

2 edits

1 recommendation

Buffer sizes.

I think Google has reduced the size of their buffering algorithms, to reduce the scalability pace of bandwidth infrastructure and server hardware. All, at the expense of users' overall experience.

OBVIOUSLY Google's buffer algorithms have changed dramatically. For what reason? It's anyone's guess.

Besides, Google's more important than it's users! Who cares about the users.

technocar2

join:2009-05-29
Brampton, ON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

said by Seeley:

I think Google has reduced the size of their buffering algorithms, to reduce the scalability pace of bandwidth infrastructure and server hardware. All, at the expense of users' overall experience.

OBVIOUSLY Google's buffer algorithms have changed dramatically. For what reason? It's anyone's guess.

Besides, Google's more important than it's users are anyways.

They have done just that...just look at their server host names now.

Here is an example
hxxp://r4---sn-nwj7knel.c.youtube.com/videoplayback?algorithm=throttle-factor&burst=40&cp=U0hVRllPU19NUUNONV9RSV

/videoplayback?algorithm=throttle-factor&burst=40&cp????


anon623

@mich.net
reply to Seeley
That would actually make some sense. Imagine if someone clicked on a video that was 5 minutes long and decided 10 seconds in they didn't want to watch any more. If you let someone download half of the video before they closed the stream it could take a lot of bandwidth. Multiply that by 100,000 users and they could be wasting many TBs of bandwidth.

Also, if you were on a 4G phone you might also not want it to download the entire video for the same reasons. You would certainly eat your bandwidth cap faster if you downloaded all of the clips but only watched a small portion of them.