Re: Bandwidth... compression... saving $$?
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 20:37, Jason Lim wrote:
> > However, I was wondering if there is a solid method to setup a link
> > between a Linux or Windows or Mac box here in Australia, and have all
data
> > travel across a compressed tunnel of some sort.
>
> What do you do on the net?
Lots of email... lots of mailing lists... i imagine that compressing
emails (of which i get maybe 50-100 each day... a chunk of that is spam,
but nonetheless it uses bandwidth) would yield very high compression
rates.
>
> Web access? It's mostly jpg and gif transfers.
True... but saving on all the txt would help too.
> Remote logins? ssh -C
Already.
> File transfer? It's all .tgz files or .deb's (gzip compressed
internally).
or .exe ... which can be compressed a bit more.
> I think that SSL is compressed internally, but in any case encrypted
data
> can't be compressed.
AFAIK it can be compressed first then encrypted.
> It's a nice idea, but I doubt that it'll give much benefit.
Depends... you see, especially when you have lots of email accounts, and
lots of emails... i'm talking in excess of probably 50 emails. Some...
dare i mention, are HTML emails. Plus, okay.. on a webpage, maybe there is
10K of txt, 50K of graphics (these are arbitrary numbers). Thus, okay...
maybe I can save overall 1/5 or 1/6th of my bandwidth... and about 80% of
my email bandwidth. So overall, i would be saving quite a bit, right?
Okay.. obviously there are implications to this... streaming video and
games would obviously not be smooth, since the data is being routed
through HK from Australia... but I imagine for things like IMAP, POP3,
general HTTP, and other such uses would benefit from maybe saving at least
1/3 to 1/5 of the bandwidth.
What do you reckon? Doable?
Reply to: