Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cloud The Internet

Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic 71

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the cloud-internet-convergence dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A Wired story claims Amazon's cloud now hosts enough companies and traffic to generate 1% of all Internet traffic (and visits from 1/3 of daily Internet users). An amazing number if true. And a little scary for one company to host this much cloud infrastructure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic More

Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic

Comments Filter:

  • Akamai was there years ago (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ProfessionalTech ( 2620889 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:28AM (#39723927)

    And a little scary for one company to host this much cloud infrastructure.

    Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's. There's still long way for Amazon to go.

    • Except that Akamai mostly deals with static content. Distribution of images, video and static pages. While Amazon allows you to host web applications on their platform. Plus you can rent out computing time for non-internet related purposes. Quite different services as far as I'm concerned.

      • Re:Akamai was there years ago (Score:4, Informative)

        by ProfessionalTech ( 2620889 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:40AM (#39724109)
        And delivering static content (images, videos, software executables and patches and so on) is what makes most of the traffic on Amazon's network, so thinking about non-internet related purposes on a story about how much traffic Amazon has is a moot point. Besides, Akamai's CDN and the availability of their network in different parts of the world is much more impressive than Amazon's.

    • Akamai doesn't generate traffic (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CaptainNerdCave ( 982411 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:43AM (#39724157)

      Akamai is like a company that handles the pedestrian and motor traffic, they don't actually generate anything. Their business model is designed around traffic management and _content_delivery_.

      Amazon, Google, et al are generating the traffic.

    • Akamai is a cloud content provider, much the same as my squid proxy server is a cloud content provider.

    • Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's.

      LOL, is "multiple regional cache servers" now "the cloud"?

      I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I've just never seen it distilled quite down to its essence like that.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Right. Akamai delivers around 20% of internet's traffic, is basically cloud content provider and has been so since the 90's.

        LOL, is "multiple regional cache servers" now "the cloud"?

        I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I've just never seen it distilled quite down to its essence like that.

        It is the cloud (which is an incredibly over-used term).

        Just because it isn't providing actual off-load of compute power in terms of processes running "in the cloud" versus at an origin doesn't mean it isn't the cloud. Akamai provides storage and routing logic (through several means) outside of a single customer - it certainly is "the cloud".

  • LOL, Raise their taxes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:29AM (#39723949)

    After all, they ARE the 1%

  • 1% is "a little scary"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:36AM (#39724055)

    What's scary is that the author thinks 1% is scary. Let's talk again if they hit 10%.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by alen ( 225700 )

      any time someone dares to serve more of the internet than google its scary

    • It may be large enough to make the MPAA notice. And since the only reason that kind of traffic is generated is copyrighted material. And all copyrighted material on the Internet must have a significant component owned by the MPAA,

      So Jeff Bezos should be getting smeared as a pirate soon. And his local swat team should be visiting him, along with the prerequisite FBI, ICE and Homeland Security thugs.

      So, ya, it could be a bit scary.

  • When I use its "experimental" browser to access the web, is it using the Amazon cloud or going direct to the net? It is unclear.

    (Note: I'm talking about the regular kindle, not the Kindle fire with its Silk browser.)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by alen ( 225700 )

      the web lives on amazon's cloud. a lot of websites are stored on amazon's cloud to be closer to customers.

      the idea that you visit a site by going to someone's server is quite quaint and outdated

    • according to things I've read, it's "enhanced" by the "Amazon Cloud". I'm willing to bet it's proxied, just to make sure you're not using the AT&T 3G for anything too personal.

      • >>>according to things I've read, it's "enhanced" by the "Amazon Cloud".

        That's true for Amazon Silk on the Fire tablet. It operates similar to Opera Turbo where the browser fetches pages from the Opera server and then downloads a compressed images/text/HTML.

        But my older Kindle doesn't come with Silk. Its browser is called "experimental" and operates at 3G speeds (about the same as my home DSL ~700 kbit/s).

    • The Kindle Fire does, other don't.
      However all digital books and music, IIRC, that you purchase from amazon are on the "cloud"

      • So far I've not bought anything for my kindle... I just copy-over plain text books.
        Amazon must be annoyed.
        Heh heh. :-)

  • It would be scary if it were true. But it ain't true. Nevertheless, GREAT topic for discussion!

  • Bad Bots (Score:3)

    by Bill Dimm ( 463823 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:45AM (#39724185) Homepage

    Is it just my imagination, or is there a huge amount of traffic from AWS coming from bots that don't respect robots.txt?

  • ...welcome our new overlord, Mr. Bezos.

  • Fixed that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater@gmGINSBERGail.com minus poet> on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:58AM (#39724329) Homepage

    "And a little scary for one company (other than Google or Apple) to host this much cloud infrastructure."
     
    There, fixed that for you.

  • 1% is far, far, too low a number. Surely the editors left out a zero or two. After all, according to the all-wise prognosticators at Wired, Amazon owns the internet [wired.com].

  • Netflix? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:00PM (#39724355)

    But Netflix is said to use 32% of bandwidth (http://on.msnbc.com/HS3Or5), and Netflix is hosted by AWS, isn't it

    • Re:Netflix? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hobarrera ( 2008506 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:12PM (#39724451) Homepage

      I seriously doubt this: Netflix isn't available in most countries outside USA, an I'm pretty sure Asia adds up far more traffic than USA.

    • Re:Netflix? (Score:5, Informative)

      by alen ( 225700 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:20PM (#39724563)

      netflix is hosted by level 3 inside the ISP's networks

      they use amazon for the authentication part

      • Really? Are you sure?

        Netflix used to serve movies using IPv6 according to our college's traffic logs (if fact, they were about the only IPv6 traffic out there at the time). They one day it stopped. Around that time, news sites starting reporting that Netflix now streams from Amazon. Amazon doesn't support IPv6.

  • "Server" Costs (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bigbutt ( 65939 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:27PM (#39724685) Homepage Journal

    I spec'd out a cloud server a few months ago to replace my physical server and the yearly cost of the Amazon cloud server that matched my physical box was just about double (it cost more to get a 64bit system vs a 32bit system).

    [John]

    • Re:"Server" Costs (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:21PM (#39725503)
      Yes. Using a Cloud for 1:1 replacement of a physical hardware is silly. The point is to use the Cloud to flexibly manage your instances I.e. if you're hosting a website, you can spin up more instances during your busy hours, and shut them down again when it's quite: unlike physical hardware, which would sit idle during the quite periods.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They include some redundancy, the internet connection, power, and AC. A single server probably won't match their uptime either unless you have it at a co-lo facility.

  • One cloud to rule them all...
  • Well, then. If 2011 is any indication, then Amazon's greater share of Net traffic should INCREASE the average amount of downtime for webservers.

    All centralization of the internet equals a decrease in quality and reliability.
  • What about how much percent of all internet trafic goes thru companies based on a single country where by law (present or in a near future) must handle in a silver plate all their customer/visitors data to the government, and block whatever the government says, and so on.

  • I believe that Instagram is 100% hosted on AWS EC2 instances and S3. We'll see if they move to Facebook's data centers.

    The $1B valuation of that company would not have been possible without using Amazon as their provider. Amazon is definitely doing something right.

  • When does the %s get high enough to no longer qualify as 'cloud' and instead multiple single points of failure services.

  • Or why is it such a small number?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"

Close