So now you’ve backed down from “thousands of users” to a dozen?
If you have THOUSANDS OF USERS (your words)… you should probably at least plan for 1000 concurrents, probably more (remember you have to plan for peaks, not average).
You seem to be missing this repeatedly… I’m not sure how else to present it to you. You made the claim that a decent singular server should be able to host THOUSANDS (with an S… so multiple thousands.) I’m showing you that even if it’s just 1000 concurrents, you’re paying a heavy cost JUST for bandwidth… forget the server. You’re over your head if you think a single server is doing this shit.
I run a plex instance, I have 8gbps internet to my house. I could host probably 80-100 simultaneous streams on that bandwidth of raw blurays. My servers could not handle that load simultaneously (and they’re hooked up as 40gbps internally). If bandwidth is the easy side of this equation (it is)… and your assertions are already failing… Then you’re just plain wrong.
So now you’ve backed down from “thousands of users” to a dozen?
If you have THOUSANDS OF USERS (your words)… you should probably at least plan for 1000 concurrents, probably more (remember you have to plan for peaks, not average).
You seem to be missing this repeatedly… I’m not sure how else to present it to you. You made the claim that a decent singular server should be able to host THOUSANDS (with an S… so multiple thousands.) I’m showing you that even if it’s just 1000 concurrents, you’re paying a heavy cost JUST for bandwidth… forget the server. You’re over your head if you think a single server is doing this shit.
I run a plex instance, I have 8gbps internet to my house. I could host probably 80-100 simultaneous streams on that bandwidth of raw blurays. My servers could not handle that load simultaneously (and they’re hooked up as 40gbps internally). If bandwidth is the easy side of this equation (it is)… and your assertions are already failing… Then you’re just plain wrong.