Okay - one more question then.
Looking at "Usage this cycle" is that then usage since the last charge or usage since the first of the month?
It should of course in my opinion be since last charge but I'm in doubt because when I open a Report for that application the begin date is the first of the month up till today.
(Sorry for the delay, I'm coming back to speed after a vacation)
You're right of course, the "cycle" refers to your billing cycle, which,
if you've paid the $5 upgrade fee, starts on the day you made that payment
(you're billed every month from that day). If it's a free account, we just
use calendar months.
Our reports could be smarter - you're able to change the range for the
report graphs, which default to calendar months. I'm making a note that we
should remember your billing date and use that for the graphs.
Another thing you should probably look into:
I changed a Monthly Limit from $15 to $50. After I logged out and in again it said FREE.
After another logout and login it correctly said $50 though.
Two questions I really hope someone can answer. FYI I am building a simple 1-to-1 video/text chat, currently on Stratus, but sick of the downtime, etc..
1) When a communicating over a p2p connection, are we still charged for messages?
2) If I have 100 people randomly chatting with eachother, what percentage would you expect to fall back to hub-spoke?
Currently we have p2p only for audio/video and not data messages.
a) If you are using p2p for audio/video, then you are not charged for that stream. You are charged only for the connection time.
b) Currently we don't have p2p for text chat. But in future when we provide that feature, you won't be charged for text chat for any number of users. However, for audio/video chat, it falls back to hub-spoke the moment its more than 3 people or someone doesn’t have player 10 or firewall.
Hironmay, correct me if I'm wrong here but in scenario a), doing a p2p video
call, you are still charged for "messaging" because you must still be
connected to the LCCS service. There are still control messages being
passed back and forth almost like a sideband channel between the two peer to
peer clients. You won't be charged for the stream but there is still a
smaller charge for the messaging in this case. That's my understanding of
how all this works anyway.
This makes sense to me, though I don't see why messages couldnt be passed in the p2p stream as we do successfully with Stratus.
My concern is really the amount of users that require the fall back to hub-spoke. The difference in cost with an app serving tens of thousands of users could be tremendous.
Assuming we detect and force Flash Player 10.1+ use in our app, what % (very roughly) might we expect to have to fall back due to firewall issues?
By debugging ChatRoulette's code I noticed they've increased their FMS server cluster from 5 to 12 boxes. My guess is there is a pretty large % of fallback for whatever reason.
Yep welcome to my world, we worry about the same thing with our LCCS video
chat. Besides if you could pass messages over p2p, how could they charge
you for connect time? I forget how but you can force no hub and spoke if
Oh and btw, this might not apply to you but right now you can't do video and
audio chat with three people without getting forced into hub and spoke.
Something to do with the maximum number of p2p streams that are currently
allowed before fall back. One of the guys mentioned changing that in a
future release though.
I've been assuming (dangerous I know) that firewall/NAT fall back will
happen whenever someone is behind a symmetric NAT, a dual NAT or a very
restrictive firewall. So that would be users in some corporate environments
(certainly not our small startup office), and probably home users running
firewall programs on their PC that are set to be very restrictive. So hard
to come up with a percentage really, but I'd wager that most people who are
just behind typical home routers will be just fine.
First up, for P2P audio/video chat, as long as you're just doing 3 people
or fewer in a room, and they all have permissive firewalls, you'll be fine.
We are adding P2P data, likely within the next 2 months (it's more
complicated for us, since we wanted to fit it properly within our existing
dev model). As Basu says, you won't be charged for P2P usage. I'm making a
note that one of the features we should add in is the ability to prevent a
user from connecting unless they can get RTMFP to work.
That said, in all cases, you'll still have some control messages sent hub
and spoke (for example, for setting up the peer connections), and you'll
still have connection time charges (RTMFP still requires a persistent
connection to the service, which eats a small portion of our capacity).
Can you clarify this statement " First up, for P2P audio/video chat, as long as you're just doing 3 people or fewer in a room, and they all have permissive firewalls, you'll be fine."
In a previous thread where I asked about three man a/v chat I asked:
Is there a limit on the number of P2P streams allowed by the flash player? I've got three way video chat working and there's a message in my debug log that says: "The total stream limit for P2P streams have" and then it cuts off. I grepped the source and didn't find that warning/error message.
So I'm guessing it's about to tell me the number of streams have been reached? Beyond the fact that 3 upstream video chats is probably all most connections can handle, is this a hard limit in the player or a soft limit based on available bandwidth?
Thanks for the help.
To which Hironmay later responded:
If you are doing both audio and video for all three , It won't work. However, if you are doing only video then all three can share video.
So, the logic says the number of streams of any user multiplied by number of other users (except him) should not be greater than 3. So, if I am sharing both audio and video and there are two more people, then it becomes 4, which makes it fall back to hub-spoke.
Hope this helps
To which you responed:
Yeah, in this case, for every user that's receiving your stream, you have
to stream separately to them. So if I'm videochatting with 3 folks, I'm
pushing 3 streams - it's a lot for most uplinks to handle (many have their
hands full with just 1).
What we could consider doing is adding an API to StreamManager, such that
you could declare the stream limit and override how much pushing you think
your users can handle.
So does this mean you have removed this restriction or that there is a new API in StreamManager I need to look up and add to our code?
Not trying to be a d*ck just want to make sure I'm on top of things.
What we have here is a hard limit (3 streams per user, Basu does a good job
in explaining the math as you've quoted him), but it's in the SDK, not the
player. We based this on some empirical testing - we're not dynamically
measuring your bandwidth. I wondered aloud if it made sense to allow
developers to modify that limit, which I think I'm hearing the answer is
yes, we should.
hope that helps
Now with the wonderful April feature explosion, I just want to revisit the pricing a bit here. If I use P2P data messaging, will I be charged for $0.10 USD per 1K message pushed in?
Thank you very much!
Hi Fang -- the service looks great. I'd like to clarify a point about potential high-volume usage.
We're building a video chat app that could become very high-volume. Hypothetically, let's say we have 1m users, day and night. Each one sends 100 messages per hour and -- each month -- uses 100 MB of bandwidth. Hypothetically again, all the video/audio streaming would go through P2P.
1) Would it really cost $14.5 million per month, or does a 'user minute' register only when there is server activity for a user during a given minute?
2) Do you see these stats below as more or less accurate? [note that messages would be used only for: peering; IM on our site]
What's interesting about this model is that you're assuming 1M users at
all times. Based on experience, concurrency tends to run at less than 5% for
any service, so you're talking about at least 20M users total. So, if you
can derive $1/month of value per user, you're making $5.5M. Is that not
Thanks for your response, Nigel. I don't think that model will scale for any significant business. As an example, Facebook derives around $2 per year from its users, and it is starting to do a decent job monetizing. Now imagine if it relied on a 3rd party service like LCCS and they proposed taking a cut of 65% of gross revenues. Not realistic.
It seems to me that LCCS pricing is far out of line with FMS pricing -- around 100x more, even if you include Amazon EC2 hosting for FMS -- so I wondered if I am misreading the LCCS pricing?
You are quite right about 20MM users equating to 1MM connections. But what are the advantages of LCCS over FMS (or 'FMS + our own cluster engineering') when the price disparity is so enormous?
Comparing the "pay-per-use" pricing model with that of FMS's is really apples and oranges. The real answer here is that your project is probably too big for "pay-per-use" as this pricing model is really designed for people to get started quickly, easily, and cheaply. I think a concurrency based pricing model is more appropriate for your scale -- check out this blog post: http://blogs.adobe.com/collabmethods/2010/04/have_it_your_way.html.
Can you answer the following questions about LCCS Pay Per Use Pricing?
Is this version of LCCS only for developing prototypes or doing light development?
How would one be sure of uptime guarantee and is there any sort of technical support available?
I have heard that this environment will be taken offline for 12-24 hours or sometimes a day or two. Is this correct? If so, how can we deploy apps for our customers?
No, this version of LCCS is as good as it gets =). We've definitely never
taken the system offline for any length of time you describe - our uptime
for 2010 is actually above 99.9%. We do have scheduled maintenance windows,
which typically last an hour or less, and in most cases don't have any
downtime for our customers.
hope that helps
The current support mechanism available for "pay-per-use" and free trial customers today is through the forums. If you need full-time coverage, phone support and a service level guarantee, it's best to look at the other pricing options -- see this blog post here.