File Hosting with Fast Download Speed All Around the World?
In the past, our files are hosted on US dedicated server. So the download speed is fine in US region, but not in Asia. Therefore, to improve the download speed in Asia, we have to purchase an additional Asia server. Now if we want to improve the speed in Europe,
++++++++++++++
list of top cheapest host http://Listfreetop.pw
Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw/surf
free link exchange sites list http://Listfreetop.pw/links
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
+++++++++++++++
then we need to purchase an additional server in EU. In this way, we need to spend a lot of money and time to prepare more and more local servers to make sure the download speed is fast all around the world.
Is there a file hosting service that can make sure the download speed is always fast all around the world. I think cloud hosting may be the solution so I ask here to find a solution.
Thanks
You might be better served with a CDN. They have options to speed up websites as well as serve up files on dozens of servers around the world. Take a look at bunnycdn. Funny name but very inexpensive and they have great service. There are lots of CDN vendors to pick from. Much cheaper then buying servers and maintaining them.
Not sure what configs you want to buy in Europe or Asia, but a CDN doesn't necessarily need to be cheaper than physical servers, especially if you are in need of a lot of physical storage.
In the example above for the bunny cdn you pay about 2000 USD p/m for 200 TB storage. If you take physical nodes I'm sure you can do a much better deal than this So for your project I don't think CDN is the solution unless the price drops a lot.
? www.InstantDedicated.com - Online in no time
? Dedicated Servers in [EU] Netherlands with DAILY support, also on weekends
? 1 Tbit+/s Network AS49453 with 100 Gbit/s uplinks
? Streaming / IPTV allowed | Up to 10 Gbit ports | 100% Network Uptime
Buy a few dedicated servers from an unmanaged provider and have the servers clustered. CDN may have limitations on the file size being cached. Since you mention file hosting, I am assuming these are large media files etc
A U T O M 8 N . C O M
cPanel plugin for Active-Active redundancy,High Availability and Native Nginx
DDOS-BruteForce-BadBot mitigation, System Monitoring using Netdata, cPanel Backup using Borg/Borgmatic
User Friendly,Automated! ,Read the Docs -- https://autom8n.com/docs/
Use a CDN, if your activity is hot (i.e. people downloading frequently - every minute or less) then your files will remain at the edge so no (or little) origin proxying. You can start with Cloudflare for free then look at Cloudfront and others
MattF - Since the start..
eg4earn.co
mydomain.com
hosting for website
cbox.ws
oboads.com
hosting90 s.r.o
liberainformazionenews.it
yabb.pl
hosting gifts
host shipping agency
o domaine des delices marrakech
In the past, our files are hosted on US dedicated server. So the download speed is fine in US region, but not in Asia. Therefore, to improve the download speed in Asia, we have to purchase an additional Asia server. Now if we want to improve the speed in Europe, then we need to purchase an additional server in EU. In this way, we need to spend a lot of money and time to prepare more and more local servers to make sure the download speed is fast all around the world.
Is there a file hosting service that can make sure the download speed is always fast all around the world. I think cloud hosting may be the solution so I ask here to find a solution.
Thanks
As others have said look at a CDN, Content Delivery network for this.
How much bandwidth are you using per month?
This way you can keep your US dedicated server and just serve the files off the CDN.
CPK Web Services
Fully managed website hosting for every business.
Get in touch https://www.cpkws.com.au/contact-us.php
Not sure what configs you want to buy in Europe or Asia, but a CDN doesn't necessarily need to be cheaper than physical servers, especially if you are in need of a lot of physical storage.
In the example above for the bunny cdn you pay about 2000 USD p/m for 200 TB storage. If you take physical nodes I'm sure you can do a much better deal than this So for your project I don't think CDN is the solution unless the price drops a lot.
With AWS and Azure you can get that cost down considerably if you have a lot of storage needs as with Azure you can use the Hybrid solution so you can use your own server but put the excess on Azure.
Amazon S3 also works well for storage and you can combine it with Cloudfront.
CPK Web Services
Fully managed website hosting for every business.
Get in touch https://www.cpkws.com.au/contact-us.php
Thank you. The size of all files to be hosted is about 100MB only. Not very large.
Quote Originally Posted by 24x7group View Post
Not sure what configs you want to buy in Europe or Asia, but a CDN doesn't necessarily need to be cheaper than physical servers, especially if you are in need of a lot of physical storage.
In the example above for the bunny cdn you pay about 2000 USD p/m for 200 TB storage. If you take physical nodes I'm sure you can do a much better deal than this So for your project I don't think CDN is the solution unless the price drops a lot.
Total bandwidth is about 20GB per month, not very much.
Quote Originally Posted by Chaddy View Post
As others have said look at a CDN, Content Delivery network for this.
How much bandwidth are you using per month?
This way you can keep your US dedicated server and just serve the files off the CDN.
Thank you. The size of all files to be hosted is about 100MB only. Not very large.
Not a problem, what about the bandwidth to your servers? how much traffic are you getting?
This will impact the cost of the CDN per month.
CPK Web Services
Fully managed website hosting for every business.
Get in touch https://www.cpkws.com.au/contact-us.php
How about Google Cloud CDN? Based on https://www.cdnperf.com/ , Google Cloud CDN is the fastest one in the world?
Quote Originally Posted by Chaddy View Post
With AWS and Azure you can get that cost down considerably if you have a lot of storage needs as with Azure you can use the Hybrid solution so you can use your own server but put the excess on Azure.
Amazon S3 also works well for storage and you can combine it with Cloudfront.
Another question is, I am trying Google Cloud CDN. It seems that the Google Cloud platform can only host static web contents, such as downloadable .EXE files, images, but not dynamic contents, such as server side script(PHP, for example). Is this a limitation of the CDN when comparing with dedicated server?
How about Google Cloud CDN? Based on https://www.cdnperf.com/ , Google Cloud CDN is the fastest one in the world?
I don't have any experience with it personally.
We partner with Microsoft and we use Amazon Web Services for some stuff as well.
All of those IAAS products are pretty similar in terms of functionality though.
But Google don't have as bigger a network hear in Australia compared to the other majors.
With Azure CDN, you can get access to Akamai which has full support for dynamic content and it has the most servers and the most connectivity out of any CDN globally.
Just due to the size of the network.
Or Verizon is also available which works rather well with dynamic content it all comes down to requirements.
CPK Web Services
Fully managed website hosting for every business.
Get in touch https://www.cpkws.com.au/contact-us.php
About 20GB per month, also not a big number.
Not a problem, what about the bandwidth to your servers? how much traffic are you getting?
This will impact the cost of the CDN per month.
It seems that Akamai and Azure are two different CDN provider, the latter is from MS. Then What is the difference of using Azure and then access Akamai, or use Akamai directly?
Quote Originally Posted by Chaddy View Post
With Azure CDN, you can get access to Akamai which has full support for dynamic content and it has the most servers and the most connectivity out of any CDN globally.
Just due to the size of the network.
Or Verizon is also available which works rather well with dynamic content it all comes down to requirements.
It seems that Akamai and Azure are two different CDN provider, the latter is from MS. Then What is the difference of using Azure and then access Akamai, or use Akamai directly?
It will work out far cheaper to use Akamai through Azure, as Microsoft have worked out pretty good rates with Akamai, plus if you talk to a partner they can set it up for you.
You might also save some money moving your servers to Azure.
Also if you take a look at Fastly, www.fastly.com they give you 50GB per month for the minimum monthly commitment of USD $50 so that is another option and they support both static and dynamic content.
CPK Web Services
Fully managed website hosting for every business.
Get in touch https://www.cpkws.com.au/contact-us.php
100MB files, about 20GB bandwidth - that's not going to get past tepid, let alone hot in anyone's CDN cache.
Multi-region object storage, simple, job done.
Karl Austin :: KDA Web Services Ltd.
UK Business Hosting, Managed Servers & Private Cloud :: 0800 5429 764
Call us today and ask about our hosting & colocation solutions.
Thank you very much for your info. That is really great!
Quote Originally Posted by Chaddy View Post
It will work out far cheaper to use Akamai through Azure, as Microsoft have worked out pretty good rates with Akamai, plus if you talk to a partner they can set it up for you.
You might also save some money moving your servers to Azure.
Also if you take a look at Fastly, www.fastly.com they give you 50GB per month for the minimum monthly commitment of USD $50 so that is another option and they support both static and dynamic content.
Sorry but I cannot understand you very well. Do you mean such a bandwidth will not cause the file to be cached as hot in CDN. Then is that still meaningful to use CDN?
Quote Originally Posted by Karl Austin View Post
100MB files, about 20GB bandwidth - that's not going to get past tepid, let alone hot in anyone's CDN cache.
Multi-region object storage, simple, job done.
I try to signup an azure account and then create a storage account for Blob, then I put a test file to a container.
Then I enable the CDN for the storage account. However, the download speed is not very good, even worse that the original server.
My file at Azure Cloud Server is https://datanumen.blob.core.windows....load/index.htm
I create a CDN using Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, the URL for the test file is https://datanumen.azureedge.net/download/index.htm
I also create a CDN using Azure CDN Standard from Akamai, the URL for the test file is: https://datanumen1.azureedge.net/download/index.htm
I even create a CDN using Azure CDN Standard from Verizon, the URL for the test file is https://datanumen2.azureedge.net/download/index.htm (This one is not available since the propagation usually completes within 90 minutes)
I then test the download speed of the test file at https://tools.pingdom.com , download from South America, the results are:
Original Cloud server speed: 2.11s
CDN from MS: 2.37s
CDN from Akamai: 2.34s
So when using CDN, the speed is WORSE than the original server. There are no performance gain at all! Why?
You need to check if CDN has a POP from where you are checking.(South America)
Did you run the test only once?
When CDN POP receives the first request, it has to fetch the data from the actual server, and subsequently cache it. So, the next requests are served right out of cache, which should be faster than the actual server. So, run the tests couple of times(if not already)
90min propagation? really?
Talking about your website, did you setup the whole website in different locations? How are you redirecting country specific users to closest website location?
CDN benefits for rendering static files quickly. But if your main site has some processing logic, then TTFB(time to first byte ) might be the issue.
BountySite: Every Website deserves Security
Website Time Machine with Offsite Security Scanning
The Bounty Program for Hosting Industry
FileTrail - Full Server Backup | SSHTrail - SSH Jumpbox
Sorry but I cannot understand you very well. Do you mean such a bandwidth will not cause the file to be cached as hot in CDN. Then is that still meaningful to use CDN?
Depends on the CDN provider. Check those who can offer dedicated storage on the egde, otherwise yes - the content will be rotated out too quickly and the downloads may actually be slower. When you run speed tests, make sure the content is already in cache, and that you have all locations enabled. Many CDN services will not include what you see on their map by default. You may have to pay extra to have more exotic locations enabled for your account. Regarding your website, you can easily set up a pull zone, add Varnish cache to your server and let the CDN serve a static version of the site, which you can then update by purging the zone's cache manually or automatically.
PS. You should also check with your CDN provider of choice if they could provide DNS services, as otherwise there will be additional latency for the look ups.
Thank you for your advices. I re-test the same file twice. To eliminate the effect of 404 errors, which is mentioned by MS support, I replace the index.htm with a large picture file(about 2MB).
Below is the test result(I use https://tools.pingdom.com to perform the test):
Download From South America:
Azure:
https://datanumen.blob.core.windows....nload/test.jpg 2.05s(first) 1.96s(second)
https://datanumen.azureedge.net/download/test.jpg (Micorosft) 2.28s(first) 327ms(second)
https://datanumen1.azureedge.net/download/test.jpg (Akamai) 1.75s(first) 940ms(second)
https://datanumen2.azureedge.net/download/test.jpg (Verizon) 2.44s(first) 466ms(second)
Google:
https://storage.googleapis.com/datanumen/test.jpg 550ms(first) 457ms(second)
It seems that Google's result is rather good in both first and second time, while MS will have performance gain in the second visit.
Yes, in Azure document, it said Verizon will complete propagation within 90mins.
Currently our website is setup in one location only(a US dedicated server) so we do not have ways to redirect country specific users to closest location. THat is the reason why we want to find a solution. We want to host large files(1MB to 100MB) to CDN first and see whether the performance gain is big.
I read some articles on TTFB and it seems to improve TTFB, other than using CDN, one should improve the backend infrastructure, I think a dedicated server with Apache is powerful enough?
Quote Originally Posted by bountysite View Post
You need to check if CDN has a POP from where you are checking.(South America)
Did you run the test only once?
When CDN POP receives the first request, it has to fetch the data from the actual server, and subsequently cache it. So, the next requests are served right out of cache, which should be faster than the actual server. So, run the tests couple of times(if not already)
90min propagation? really?
Talking about your website, did you setup the whole website in different locations? How are you redirecting country specific users to closest website location?
CDN benefits for rendering static files quickly. But if your main site has some processing logic, then TTFB(time to first byte ) might be the issue.
