Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic
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."
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.
After all, they ARE the 1%
Dear Amazon.com customer:
Fred, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed Dinosaurs doomed by laying eggs?
You may also be interested in this exciting product!
Sincerely,
Jeff B. and Amazon.com
What's scary is that the author thinks 1% is scary. Let's talk again if they hit 10%.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Still less than any major porn site...
So when they break everything goes faster?
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.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
It would be scary if it were true. But it ain't true. Nevertheless, GREAT topic for discussion!
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.
Is it just my imagination, or is there a huge amount of traffic from AWS coming from bots that don't respect robots.txt?
Say, I hear a fog horn, "boooooooooorr-rrrinnngggggggggg"
...welcome our new overlord, Mr. Bezos.
Silence is a state of mime.
"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.
But Netflix is said to use 32% of bandwidth (http://on.msnbc.com/HS3Or5), and Netflix is hosted by AWS, isn't it
There must be some pirated material on those servers.
Not surprising and not scary..
For those that don't know AWS (Amazon Web Services) is who is hosting Netflix...
I'm actually surprised that it isn't more. Does Netflix use anybody else? Or does this tell us that Netflix is really not the bandwidth hog that everyone says and is using less than 1% of internet traffic since AWS obviously has more customers than just Netflix
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]
Shit better not happen!
EC2 is a haven for port scanners, sip hackers, spiders, bots and generally malicious traffic, coupled with a woeful abuse reporting system means they are blacklisted here
go on dig through your logs and see how much bandwidth "EC2LinkFinder" takes
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.
Amazon hosts huge numbers of corporate cloud infrastructure on fake Cisco equipment bought from china...(this was indicated in another article)..How easy it would be to cause it all to crash...I for one think security is still too weak to host corporations on the internet, makes them too easy a target.
Gets it massive datacenter running. Considering iDevice users consume the most media....
When does the %s get high enough to no longer qualify as 'cloud' and instead multiple single points of failure services.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Some advertising trackers are hosted in the Cloud., once I added them to my hosts file I've noticed a marked speedup in loading pages, less `waiting on ...'
I work for a large network service provider and we have seen the impact of AWS outages/impacts. A blip in their service doesn't cause a 1% "problem", it can impact 30-40% of internet browsing due to the sheer number of sites that either directly rely on content hosted on AWS/Route53 or, more importantly, via link sharing like the ubiquitous "share on facebook/twitter/linkedin/reddit/etc" buttons, or the "login with facebook/etc" services, some of which have ties through AWS. So while all the content on a site may load, parts of the page may be broken or timing out, which can cause a host problems for browsing traffic.
There are a lot of back end interconnections that link sites together that go very unnoticed, and threaten to impact a large portion of the web. Look at the number of sites that load content from Google. If they have a service problem with their ad service, every page that needs that content will, at the very least, load slowly while that content times out.
When the Juniper BGP bug hit last Novemeber (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/110711-internet-outage-252851.html) there were large swaths of the internet that became unavailable, including AWS. The impact to browsing was widespread, not just because of content being directly unavailable, but because of these back end relationships.
My focus is on DNS, and the impact we saw was tremendous. Because of the AWS (and a couple other major DNS providers) impact, DNS server threads were getting tied up waiting for answers, causing other queries to time out for good content, severely impacting all Internet traffic.
It's a very tenuous system, and it only takes a little bit of instability to shake things up.
Or why is it such a small number?