Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon's Cloud Now 1% of Internet Traffic

Posted by Unknown on 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."

21 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Akamai was there years ago by ProfessionalTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Akamai was there years ago by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Akamai was there years ago by ProfessionalTech · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Akamai was there years ago by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. LOL, Raise their taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, they ARE the 1%

  3. 1% is "a little scary"? by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:1% is "a little scary"? by alen · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:1% is "a little scary"? by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. Re:Get ready for it by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2

    This already happens due to most people not disabling scripts on most sites. My wife has an amazon account and often gets offer emails on products availible related to things she has been looking at or searching for.

    so wouldn't be anything new.

  5. Re:Get ready for it by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear Amazon.com customer:

    Fred, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed

    More likely:

    "Dear Amazon.com customer:
    Bob, we noticed from your surfing history that you recently viewed porn.

    You may also be interested in: more porn.

    Sincerely, Jeff B. and Amazon.com"

    The advantage of that message is that you don't even really need to check the user's history.

  6. Akamai doesn't generate traffic by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Bad Bots by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:Bad Bots by tool462 · · Score: 2

      I was gonna say...

      Is this Cloud to Cloud, or Cloud to ground traffic?

  8. Re:Does the Kindle use the cloud? by alen · · Score: 2

    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

  9. Fixed that... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  10. Netflix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Netflix? by hobarrera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Netflix? by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      they use amazon for the authentication part

    3. Re:Netflix? by FlashBIOS · · Score: 2

      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.

  11. "Server" Costs by Bigbutt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:"Server" Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.