True numbers? I don't think it is against the rules to say that Google is paying less then $10/meg to some providers for transit. Where the information comes from, and the exact numbers that you want however are covered under NDA's and the like. That, and they also have peering arangements with a great many.
This breaks down along the lines I was mentioning. The "Crawler" is transit traffic, as being nearly 99% "suck" traffic it would kill any peering arangement out there. The peering is the service provider side of Google, www.google.com etc.
The reality is that any provider that has a ratio bent toward content providers would kill to "Give" google transit to prop up their "Eyeball" traffic and even out ratios.
It's really not that hard a concept. They get nearly free transit to index/download everything they can find, and use peering (totally free) to serve www.google.com
Google does not pay nearly what you think for bandwidth. Lets take this down to the two basic sides of Google's buisness.
The first aspect is what everyone knows and seems to love. The web content index/search ability. This is a standard web service, but if you look closely it is also one of the most image/bloat free sites on the net. None of the google offerings are more then fancy style sheets with content, all in all...cheeper then dirt to send to a user, just compare the size vs an Amazon page.
The second side of the monster is what people don't see. The crawler that is sucking data at levels that are not to be believed. With the addition of google media and the move in the last few months to start downloading every audio file it comes across, they basicly have a copy of most of the internet at any given time.
Now, expensive bandwidth is server ---> Client. Cheep bandwidth is Client ---> Server. Google pays less, FAR less then we do because a vast majority of their bandwidth is in the form of a client. Another factor to take into account is that client traffic (often called "Eyeballs" in the industry) are the measure of peering balance. If I had to guess, I'd say that Google is getting darn near free transit from many places.
Not sure if I'm making sense here, but I just want to let people know that the assumption that Google is paying a ton for their net is off base. I think the true numbers would shock people.
Slashdot Mirror
True numbers? I don't think it is against the rules to say that Google is paying less then $10/meg to some providers for transit. Where the information comes from, and the exact numbers that you want however are covered under NDA's and the like. That, and they also have peering arangements with a great many.
This breaks down along the lines I was mentioning. The "Crawler" is transit traffic, as being nearly 99% "suck" traffic it would kill any peering arangement out there. The peering is the service provider side of Google, www.google.com etc.
The reality is that any provider that has a ratio bent toward content providers would kill to "Give" google transit to prop up their "Eyeball" traffic and even out ratios.
It's really not that hard a concept. They get nearly free transit to index/download everything they can find, and use peering (totally free) to serve www.google.com
Google does not pay nearly what you think for bandwidth. Lets take this down to the two basic sides of Google's buisness.
The first aspect is what everyone knows and seems to love. The web content index/search ability. This is a standard web service, but if you look closely it is also one of the most image/bloat free sites on the net. None of the google offerings are more then fancy style sheets with content, all in all...cheeper then dirt to send to a user, just compare the size vs an Amazon page.
The second side of the monster is what people don't see. The crawler that is sucking data at levels that are not to be believed. With the addition of google media and the move in the last few months to start downloading every audio file it comes across, they basicly have a copy of most of the internet at any given time.
Now, expensive bandwidth is server ---> Client. Cheep bandwidth is Client ---> Server. Google pays less, FAR less then we do because a vast majority of their bandwidth is in the form of a client. Another factor to take into account is that client traffic (often called "Eyeballs" in the industry) are the measure of peering balance. If I had to guess, I'd say that Google is getting darn near free transit from many places.
Not sure if I'm making sense here, but I just want to let people know that the assumption that Google is paying a ton for their net is off base. I think the true numbers would shock people.