How is it cheaper / better for the provider that the client would download quickly and in chunks or slowly but constantly?

I

Ilya bow2019-04-02 20:39:35

Computer networks

Ilya bow, 2019-04-02 20:39:35

Let's say when watching a video online.
If from a technical point of view, which is better?
If slowly but constantly, then it seems that you can plan the network so that it is not overloaded
. And if it is fast, then we quickly sent packets to you and the client does not load the brains of the equipment.
How were things before, how are things now, and where are we going in general?

Reply

Answer the question

In order to leave comments, you need to log in

5 answer(s)

#

#, 2019-04-02
@mindtester

the provider does not have a headache at all if there is really a lot of traffic. its equipment serves requests as they come in and either copes with them or not so much. and when watching a video, in fact, the paging strategy is built by the player. more precisely the coders who wrote it

R

rPman, 2019-04-02
@rPman

Slowly but constantly, because in this case the average will be the smallest. Clients do not watch the entire movie, they can refuse or skip half of the content, which means you loaded it in advance in vain.

V

Vladimir Bobylev, 2019-04-02
@ShturmN

It is not clear what "fast" and "slow" means. If you mean a big delay - nobody needs your internet. This is immediately minus the game, telephony and video. The less latency you have when transmitting packets, the better. And if you are talking about channel width, it all depends on your uplink and last mile decision.

G

Griboks, 2019-04-02
@Griboks

According to queuing theory, "slow" (i.e., many small packages) downloads increase the average available speed and decrease the average wait time for users. Previously, they downloaded a lot and at once. Now they poop little and on demand. We go in a spiral: a large channel -> we download a lot -> a lack of a channel -> optimization and new technologies -> again a big channel.