Bandwidth: How much is too much?
Feb. 2nd, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
FAQ: What are LiveJournal's limitations on data?
The above referenced FAQ deals with the maximum size various things can be in various places around the site, but I have a question about bandwidth. I have a 939 byte image that had 2255713 hits last month. It's like the user
icon, except it's red:
(The reason that it gets so many hits is that it's attached the results of some annoying quiz thing.)
Is there currently a specified limitation on how much bandwidth an account or image can consume before it is officially considered impolite? Theoretically, I could just point the image source to a copy here and save myself over a gig of bandwidth every month. Even so, that seems to me to be not very nice, especially since FotoBilder is still in beta right now. So how much is too much? When FotoBilder is no longer in beta, how much will be too much?
|Date:||February 2nd, 2005 06:04 pm (UTC)|| |
ATM, LiveJournal has no limits on bandwidth, as far as I know. But that's because there's not much other than text on LJ right now, so it may be that, should people start doing that, they put a limit on. That said (although I don't know - I've not fiddled with PhotoBuilder much), I'd expect it doesn't allow remote loading of images, so they only work when they've come from LiveJournal pages.
|Date:||February 2nd, 2005 06:05 pm (UTC)|| |
If it's popular because it's popular, we don't want to penalize that.
What we care about is people using us for their free porn hosting for your offsite paid porn site.
(Not that we have a problem with porn... as long as you own the copyright to it and it's legal porn.... and you're not using picpix.com as remote storage and free bandwidth, and nothing else...)
|Date:||February 2nd, 2005 08:13 pm (UTC)|| |
speaking of porn
I have these great pictures of whitaker
's mom if you're interested...
|Date:||February 2nd, 2005 11:31 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: speaking of porn
|Date:||February 3rd, 2005 12:08 am (UTC)|| |
Re: speaking of porn
How far does 'popular because it's popular' go? If eBay wanted to host its images here, for instance, is that popularity as legitimate as an awesome image hosted here getting Slashdotted?
|Date:||February 3rd, 2005 01:03 pm (UTC)|| |
Just optimise your image...
16 colours, 173 bytes - over 80% bandwidth saved.
|Date:||February 4th, 2005 03:16 am (UTC)|| |
or replace it with goatse and kill the quiz nice and quick ;)
Wow, thanks! Even zoomed in there's little recognisable difference!
This doesn't exactly solve the topic of bandwidth, but at least I'm happy now! ^_^
|Date:||February 11th, 2005 03:41 am (UTC)|| |
Okay, I'm totally ignorant but I'm trying to not be. If there's unlimited bandwidth, that's a separate issue from storage space, right? You could have just a few pictures accessed over and over, and still use a lot of bandwidth, or a lot of pictures hardly ever accessed, and not use a lot of bandwidth, but exceed your storage space Because I just got the message that I had done that. And I know I have a lot of pictures, but the thing is -- I want to have a lot more, because I'm doing this project where I'm documenting the changes of season in several locations around town.
Is there a way to increase storage space? I'd be willing to purchase a second fotobilder account, but I'd like it to look seemless.
Storage space dictates how many pictures you can have, where as bandwidth (kinda) measures how many copies you give out.
Apparently there are no limits on bandwidth at the moment, so you may just be using close enough to all of your space.
Check if how much you're using here:http://www.livejournal.com/manage/files.bml?authas=ritaxis
When FotoBilder/Scrapbook is no longer in beta, you'll be able to buy more space. This is supposed to be not long. (August 2004, last I heard.)
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|