[HN Gopher] Redditor acquires decommissioned Netflix cache serve...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Redditor acquires decommissioned Netflix cache server with 262TB of
       storage
        
       Author : rcarmo
       Score  : 270 points
       Date   : 2022-10-28 07:50 UTC (15 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
        
       | wscott wrote:
       | Looks at the blog posts from "Drew Gallatin" on serving 100 Gbps
       | (or more) from a single server. This is the server and that is no
       | small task.
        
         | 867-5309 wrote:
         | >one quad-port 10-gigabit Ethernet NIC card
        
         | drewg123 wrote:
         | No, these pre-date this performance work. The original 100g
         | work was done on a Xeon e5-2697a with NVME storage and no
         | mechanical hard drives. I still use this class of machine as a
         | benchmark to measure performance improvements
        
           | runlevel1 wrote:
           | I'm curious, do you re-image the machines to test each of
           | your changes or do you have a method with a faster feedback
           | loop?
        
       | dsfyu404ed wrote:
       | We had one of these colocated at the rural state university I
       | used to work at. Saved us tons of bandwidth not having tens of
       | thousands of undergrads need to get their 1s and 0s from further
       | afield. Probably improved typical download speeds for everyone
       | upstream of us too.
        
       | eric4smith wrote:
       | Use it as one of those BitTorrent storage servers.
        
         | aasasd wrote:
         | I would finally be able to download all the Assetto Corsa and
         | rFactor mods I want, _and_ seed those things where there 's
         | just me and a couple other dudes so bailing feels bad--with
         | still some storage left for peace of the mind.
        
       | drited wrote:
       | Do Disney plus and HBO Max also have storage embedded with local
       | ISPs or is this an advantage unique to Netflix?
        
         | nosequel wrote:
         | Disney+, HBO, most streaming services not called Netflix use
         | CDN services. Disney+ is heavily multi-CDN, at least they were
         | at launch: https://www.csimagazine.com/csi/Disney-eating-up-
         | Euro-peerin....
         | 
         | HBO also uses multiple CDNs, here is a reference from 2020
         | about GoT: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hbo-
         | streams-game-of....
         | 
         | They were also mad that one of their distribution partners last
         | week leaked the finale of House of the Dragon early:
         | https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-
         | radio/2022/oct/21/house-o....
         | 
         | I don't have a link handy, but even Amazon has been known to
         | use CDNs outside of CloudFront for their live events.
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | >They were also mad that one of their distribution partners
           | last week leaked the finale of House of the Dragon early
           | 
           | I used to work for one of the companies supporting studios
           | getting their content to streamers. This specific story is
           | related to iTunes, but it's easy to do for any of them. The
           | early days of "ramping up" meant putting butts in seats to do
           | the work before automation was in place. The push to automate
           | shot to highest priority when on of the butts in seats
           | incorrectly copy/paste from one spreadsheet to the next which
           | allowed an episode to be downloaded before it aired to anyone
           | that subscribed to that season on iTunes.
           | 
           | The fallout from that was incredible, but credit to the
           | company they did not fire the employee for making a human
           | mistake.
        
       | andsoitis wrote:
       | And if you're interested in how Netflix's CDN works:
       | 
       | - https://www.theverge.com/22787426/netflix-cdn-open-connect
       | 
       | - https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
        
         | easton wrote:
         | The "briefing" PDF on that page has a GIF in it. Never seen
         | that before.
        
           | retube wrote:
           | It seems wildly under-utilised, but .pdf supports fully
           | dynamic and interactive graphics
        
             | albrewer wrote:
             | At a job I had long ago, embedding an interactive 3d model
             | of a laser scan diffed with a CAD model was one of the
             | products of my work. It was probably the best and easiest
             | way to get that information to other people because
             | otherwise we would have had to find some other way for
             | people to view point clouds with color embedded.
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | Good way to mess with people that like to print PDFs
        
               | dekhn wrote:
               | http://home.thep.lu.se/~bjorn/postscript/ for those who
               | aren't familiar with using printers to render fractals
        
               | dylan604 wrote:
               | sheesh, and i thought g-code was hard to read
        
               | navbaker wrote:
               | Maybe an opportunity to print out every frame of the gif
               | and make a flip book for the reader to enjoy!
        
               | dylan604 wrote:
               | I can totally see it happening where someone hits print
               | for the color printer on the other side of the office
               | expecting 4 or 5 pages, but upon arriving at the printer
               | after a short walk sees a stack of pages yet it still
               | hasn't finished.
               | 
               | HR later sends out an email regarding the printing of
               | PDFs unnecessarily. Think of the trees that could be
               | saved by not printing.
        
             | brnt wrote:
             | This being underutilized is a good thing.
        
       | perihelions wrote:
       | Other thread here:
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33350152 ( _" I got a
       | Netflix cache server. 262TB"_, 27 comments)
        
       | dagurp wrote:
       | Can You Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These?
        
         | snapcaster wrote:
         | This comment always makes me laugh and then remember how old I
         | am and get a little sad
        
           | xtracto wrote:
           | it's one of the earliest /. Era memes that I remember, along
           | with "year of linux desktop" , "netcraft confirms" and "in
           | Russia X does YOU". But I think all those are contemporary,
           | along with "email is for old people " and others I don't
           | remember now.
           | 
           | Darn those were nice times.
        
             | deltarholamda wrote:
             | I was terribly disappointed there wasn't a news article on
             | slashdot when Alan Thicke passed away.
             | 
             | Reading at -1 was a bit of a chore, but also sometimes fun.
        
             | snapcaster wrote:
             | "year of linux desktop" takes me back haha. It was such a
             | simpler time
        
               | dekhn wrote:
               | It's be great to go back in time to 2001 and tell
               | Slashdot: I am from the future. Linux runs on a billion
               | devices more powerful than any desktop computer it
               | currently runs on. A quarter of people in the world use
               | Linux daily. However, Linux still never had it year of
               | the desktop.
        
             | rerx wrote:
             | Is a Beowulf cluster something conceptually different from
             | any compute cluster / super computer running Linux today?
        
               | dekhn wrote:
               | The defining attribute of original Beowulf clusters that
               | made them interesting was the use of channel bonding to
               | get more bandwidth than a single NIC could provide
               | cheaply in those days.
               | 
               | At the same time, it demonstrated you could build a
               | useful and inexpensive cluster using white-box linux
               | desktop machines sitting on wire shelving. I did exactly
               | the same thing at the time, except for the channel
               | bonding, which would have helped my cluster scaling
               | significantly, but I didn't have any budget left over for
               | more NICs and since I was using a hub, there would have
               | been lots of collisions anyway.
        
               | retrac wrote:
               | It's a cluster, made out of commodity computers and
               | network equipment, that wasn't designed specifically to
               | be part of a cluster.
               | 
               | "Beowulf" was just the name of an early machine built
               | that way at NASA in the 90s. The approach is not unusual
               | now; many "low-end" supercomputers are just a few racks
               | of commodity servers. But it was very unconventional in
               | the early 90s, which is why the Beowulf term existed, to
               | distinguish it from "real" clusters.
               | 
               | Hardware Ethernet switches -- able to stream from port to
               | port at full speed -- were the revolutionary component.
               | Before Ethernet, clusters required specialized hardware
               | implementing a crossbar-like switched fabric, so that all
               | the nodes could communicate at high speed with each
               | other, with a minimum of hops. These were solutions for
               | clustering mainframes and minicomputers, horribly
               | expensive and proprietary.
        
               | icco wrote:
               | Beowulfs were huge hacks back in the day, but are similar
               | to most super computers. The main difference from how
               | many think of compute clusters these days is it is
               | managed as a single machine, so historically needed
               | identical hardware. Parallel processing and concurrency
               | used to be more rare :D
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster
        
               | trelane wrote:
               | I think the main distinction is that modern clusters are
               | shiny, sleek, fancy, and expensive.
               | 
               | Whereas a Beowulf cluster is grungy, full of bailing
               | twine, chewing gum, and possessing high levels of Bodge.
               | And dirt cheap, built with what you can get, often used.
        
             | halo wrote:
             | Stop making me feel old you insensitive clod.
        
         | ryzvonusef wrote:
         | (Score:5, Funny)
         | 
         | my last /. comment was 2014, jfc
        
       | komfushee wrote:
       | Oh yeah, we used that as an ISP. Loved it for the deployment on
       | local cable networks.
        
       | vincengomes wrote:
       | Link to the Reddit Post
       | 
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ydollm/so_i_got_a_...
       | 
       | Followup Post
       | 
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ydollm/so_i_got_a_...
        
         | snowwrestler wrote:
         | I wonder why these are deleted now.
        
           | anonu wrote:
           | Cease and desist from Netflix?
        
       | haunter wrote:
       | There is a small Q&A from a Netflix dev about how they worked
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ydollm/so_i_got_a_...
       | 
       | I noticed the display too, you can still buy them
       | https://www.crystalfontz.com/product/cfa635tmlku-display-mod...
        
         | newsclues wrote:
         | Those displays seem to be the same one sold to gamers years
         | ago. I yearned for one as a youth!
        
           | r2_pilot wrote:
           | The Pertelian? I still have mine and came across the printed
           | instruction set just the other day. Fun times. I've thought
           | about trying to get it to work in the modern era, but there
           | are small and info-dense screens these days.
        
             | 411111111111111 wrote:
             | Displays just like that were on the Logitech G15 iirc.
             | Nobody would take these keyboard seriously anymore but
             | rubberdome was kinda the norm back then
        
           | Crosseye_Jack wrote:
           | Well they are "just" HD44780 driven LCD displays (which are
           | sold on eBay pretty cheap these days). Back in the day when
           | every machine had a parallel port we used to just drive them
           | directly bit banging out what we wanted. These days you can
           | just slap an Arduino inbetween one and a USB port and jobs
           | pretty much done.
        
             | eddieroger wrote:
             | That triggered a memory of when I decided to put a mini-
             | tower PC in my trunk to may MP3s, and bought one of these
             | displays off eBay so I could see a very basic menu and some
             | song info. 4x40 characters of greatness propped up in the
             | empty bay of my Camry. Those were the days.
        
             | ckozlowski wrote:
             | Yup! They're very flexible.
             | 
             | I remember these units too. Back in 2002-2005, I worked for
             | a small system integrator. We built turn-key appliances for
             | software vendors. Firewalls, security appliances, etc. We'd
             | work with chassis manufacturers to add cutouts for these
             | units on the front of 1U and 2U servers to provide for an
             | interface without needing to hook up a console cart. Same
             | as you might see on a Dell or HP.
             | 
             | Really neat seeing these still in use!
        
             | Slartie wrote:
             | Haha, yeah, I have fond memories of these displays. Got my
             | hands onto one by accident as a kid, but didn't have any
             | software to drive it, so I wrote me some software to drive
             | those on the parallel port for display of CPU and RAM
             | usage, number of mails in inbox, fan speeds and stuff. That
             | program even gained a certain popularity in the case-
             | modding scene, it was a hideous pile of crappy Visual Basic
             | 4.0 code called "just another LCD software" or "jaLCDs".
        
           | ct0 wrote:
           | I remember these displays too, for fan control and stuff
           | right? There used to be a website of basically show and tell
           | of tower machines with cool upgrades. All pre RGB, but there
           | were plenty of lights fans switches, all of it. It had to be
           | popular around 2000/2001. Anyone remember the site?
        
             | ChoGGi wrote:
             | HardOCP?
        
             | auxym wrote:
             | Overclockers maybe?
             | 
             | But I definitely do remember the era of cold cathodes:)
        
           | zh3 wrote:
           | I've used those for many hacks. To this day there is one on
           | my desk, with the arrow keys adjusting audio volume, with
           | 'tick' and 'x' keys for mute/unmute. The display shows
           | date/time/audio volume and email counters, with a 60s blip to
           | the name of the person calling when the phone rings.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | anshumankmr wrote:
       | Has anyone been able to get their hands on a decomissioned Google
       | server?
        
         | johndfsgdgdfg wrote:
         | I wouldn't trust any Google hardware - decomissioned or not.
         | You don't know what kind of spyware they are running on their
         | hardware.
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | I mean, I like to bash on Google too, but this is just not
           | even logical.
           | 
           | They want the spyware to run on _your_ hardware. They don 't
           | need it on their hardware. If there is spyware on Goog's
           | hardware, I'd be looking at it coming from certain three
           | letter agencies or other nation states.
        
         | virtuallynathan wrote:
         | Google Global Cache appliances are just off-the-shelf Dell/HP
         | hardware, same for Facebook Network Appliances.
        
         | privong wrote:
         | > Has anyone been able to get their hands on a decomissioned
         | Google server?
         | 
         | Depending on what specifically you're after, there's a number
         | of them on ebay:
         | https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=google+search+appliance
        
         | INTPenis wrote:
         | The re-branded Dell servers Google sent out as search indexers
         | (I believe) were pretty common 10-15 years ago. I remember
         | seeing two of them here in Sweden alone, during my career.
         | 
         | But that is not the caseless DIY shelf-servers they've
         | displayed in various PR videos.
        
           | runlevel1 wrote:
           | In fact, there are a dozen on eBay right now:
           | https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=google+search+appliance
           | 
           | According to Wikipedia, the 2U models were indeed based on
           | Dell PowerEdge servers, and the 1U models were apparently
           | based on Super Micro servers.[^1]
           | 
           | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search_Appliance
        
           | snowwrestler wrote:
           | For those custom servers, I remember reading that Google did
           | not bother unracking and disposing of them, but let the dead
           | ones sit in the rack indefinitely.
           | 
           | They figured out that it was more efficient to have hardware
           | techs spend 100% of their time provisioning new hardware, and
           | just let their software detect the broken servers, power them
           | down, and route the tasks to working servers.
        
       | bluedino wrote:
       | > 36 7.2TB Western Digital hard disks
       | 
       | Kind of a letdown
       | 
       | > Interestingly, the now-defunct dial-up online service Prodigy
       | used a local caching system to distribute data more efficiently
       | using the same basic principle as Open Connect in the 1980s and
       | '90s.
       | 
       | Odd 'fact' to bring up.
        
       | steve_john wrote:
        
       | thejosh wrote:
       | Yeah, with a 9+ year old server, i wouldn't trust those disks,
       | plus the amount of power...
        
         | eric-hu wrote:
         | Would the hard disks be unreliable too?
        
         | Nextgrid wrote:
         | With enough redundancy anything can be made reliable. ZFS can
         | do some crazy RAID levels that will pretty much make _anything_
         | reliable given enough disks and CPU resources. Whether it 's a
         | good idea (especially in terms of power usage) is a good
         | question though.
        
           | ilikejam wrote:
           | You'd think so, but failing disks in raidz arrays can cause
           | extreme performance problems, and failing disk electronics
           | can cause lockups on SAS/SATA controllers.
           | 
           | Old disks are always risky. Avoid.
        
         | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
         | You should never trust any disk, that's why we have backups and
         | redundancy in the first place.
        
         | olavgg wrote:
         | I would love to have this. Old disks are no problem. They will
         | most likely continue to run fine until they no longer are worth
         | it due to either insane electricity prices or 50TB hard drives
         | becomes available for a bargain.
         | 
         | My backup server is still running almost 17-18 years old 500GB
         | hard drives. They will be retired soon though, as they consume
         | too much power and lack spindown when not in use.
        
           | gjulianm wrote:
           | I think there's a difference between the wear and tear in a
           | personal backup server and in a Netflix cache server. We
           | manage several storage servers which see intensive usage, and
           | usually at around 5 years we start to see disk failures.
        
             | dachryn wrote:
             | its fair to assume netflix is mostly doing reads and not
             | writes, and also fairly sequential.
             | 
             | Thats very good for longevity of the disks
        
               | justsomehnguy wrote:
               | > and also fairly sequential
               | 
               | ... No.
               | 
               | When you hit hundreds of concurrent operations there is
               | no such thing as sequential. Also there is no need for
               | sequential reads because a stripe of 7-15 disks would
               | give you much more than streaming bitrate needs.
        
               | michaelt wrote:
               | True - but presumably they've been spinning and doing
               | seeks pretty much 24/7. It's not like backblaze/coldline
               | where the drives are practically powered down most of the
               | time.
               | 
               | And of course, 36x the drives means 36x the drive
               | failures - and even if you avoid losing data, you've
               | still got the chore of swapping each failed drive.
        
               | Maursault wrote:
               | > And of course, 36x the drives _means 36x the drive
               | failures_
               | 
               | I think you must mean 36x the chance of drive failure.
               | Drive failure probability per year is published at around
               | 1% though practically as high as 10%. 36 drives means
               | there's somewhere between a 30.35% (1 - 0.99^36) and
               | 97.7% (1 - 0.9^36) chance _per year_ of a _single_ drive
               | failing.
        
               | dijit wrote:
               | Constantly spinning is better for the motor than starting
               | and stopping.
        
             | Hamuko wrote:
             | > _We manage several storage servers which see intensive
             | usage, and usually at around 5 years we start to see disk
             | failures._
             | 
             | Which begs the question of how old the drives actually are.
             | If intensive usage would result in lots of disk failures
             | after 5 years, then a 9-year-old server would surely have a
             | bunch of new(er) disks inside it? Or do they just reduce
             | the amount of cache space they have with every failure?
        
               | gjulianm wrote:
               | Of course, the timing depends on the usage pattern. In
               | our case we write a lot to the disks, which means they
               | fail faster. Time to failure also depends on
               | manufacturer, batch, server conditions... But in general
               | I wouldn't trust too much that have been continuously
               | running under a significant load (I don't think a Netflix
               | cache server had a lot of idle time) for so many years.
        
               | js2 wrote:
               | The latter. The case design clearly doesn't lend itself
               | to replacing drives.
               | 
               | https://old.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ydollm/so_i_got
               | _a_...
        
             | olavgg wrote:
             | I think that is a good point, however MTBF is usually a lot
             | higher on enterprise grade hard drives. My hard drives are
             | consumer grade.
        
           | throw0101c wrote:
           | > [...] _and lack spindown when not in use._
           | 
           | I was under the impression that constant on-off was what put
           | the most wear on a drive, and that if it is constantly on it
           | would last longer.
        
             | fluoridation wrote:
             | Yep. In a previous iteration of my file server I killed a
             | WD green drive in about two years because I unwittingly
             | left the head park feature on. It was parking after 8
             | seconds of inactivity, and in two years it had accumulated
             | like 2.5 million parks.
        
             | olavgg wrote:
             | Not really. With minimum 50000 cycles, you can spin up and
             | down 28 times every day for 5 years. It may not sound a
             | lot, but in reality it is. I have my NAS set to spindown
             | after 15 minutes idle time and have on average around 1000
             | cycles every year.
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | >or 50TB hard drives becomes available for a bargain.
           | 
           | Maybe my old age is showing, but this just frightens me to no
           | end. 1 50TB failure, and you've lost 50TB. Build an array of
           | smaller drives to get to 50TB, and much less catastrophe if 1
           | drive dies.
        
           | aasasd wrote:
           | For some reason the make and model of those disks is absent
           | from your comment, must've been lost in the wires.
        
             | olavgg wrote:
             | They are a mix of Samsung, WD and Seagate. 2 of them are
             | PATA, while the rest is SATA
        
         | stfp wrote:
         | Also: noise. Those things were _loud_.
        
         | winrid wrote:
         | Only about 180w average draw from the disks depending on
         | workload
        
         | js2 wrote:
         | I buy old SAS/SATA drives that have lots of hours on them. They
         | tend to look like this:
         | 
         | https://pastebin.com/raw/E39HuK59
         | 
         | Run SMART, check the stats, make sure the grown defect list is
         | 0, make sure it's never been over-temp, run a SMART long test,
         | run bad blocks, run another SMART long test. If it passes all
         | those I'd be fine continuing to use it.
         | 
         | The HUH728080ALE600 drives in that server[1] idle at 5.1
         | watts[2], so it's 184 watts just on the drives. I'm guessing at
         | idle the server runs around 300 watts. Which is not great, but
         | it's not terrible. I pay ~ $1/watt/year in NC, so running that
         | server 24x7 would cost me $300 annually.
         | 
         | If it were me I'd disconnect at least half the drives to keep
         | as spares.
         | 
         | 1. https://imgur.com/a/zb6Mqty
         | 
         | 2. https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-
         | library...
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | Cold spares can sometimes disappoint. Lots of techs preferred
           | hot spares not just for immediate availability for the
           | rebuild, but just because the spin-up was just as likely to
           | kill the drive as other failure options. With hot-spares, you
           | could rotate the drives by migrating data around like the old
           | farmers partitioning their fields to let sections rest.
        
         | runlevel1 wrote:
         | According to this article, it consumes about 500W of power:
         | https://www.phoronix.com/news/MTExNDM#:~:text=500w
         | 
         | Though I assume that's at typical Netflix workload levels.
        
       | jdsnape wrote:
       | I once worked for a large telco, and we wanted to run an
       | Elasticsearch cluster to do some data analysis. Unfortunately, we
       | worked in the wrong part of the organisation so we weren't
       | allowed to buy servers :(
       | 
       | However, we knew someone in the building opposite who was
       | responsible for the company's streaming TV service. They were
       | retiring a whole bunch of CDN machines, similar to these, which
       | had a crazy amount of storage per node.
       | 
       | While we weren't allowed to buy servers, we were allowed to buy
       | components, so I got a bunch of the retired servers and bought
       | enough RAM to max them out.
       | 
       | Made a lovely ES cluster :)
        
         | quickthrower2 wrote:
         | Congratulations on performing that red tape origami.
        
           | dzhiurgis wrote:
           | *kabuki
        
           | willis936 wrote:
           | One person's red tag is another's red tape solution.
        
         | petercooper wrote:
         | _While we weren 't allowed to buy servers, we were allowed to
         | buy components_
         | 
         | I'm curious. Could you have bought all the components to build
         | your own servers under that policy? :-D
        
           | bluedino wrote:
           | Reminds me of the Sun repairman who would order extra parts
           | here and there for customers, and ended up building his own
           | machine.
        
             | registeredcorn wrote:
             | If you happen to have a link, I'd love to give that a read.
             | :)
        
               | djbusby wrote:
               | A Listen: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uErKI0zWgjg
               | 
               | One piece at a time, Johnny Cash.
        
             | dylan604 wrote:
             | Except one story is about people doing things legitimately
             | to get things done within the constraints of their
             | corporate overlords while the other is about a thief
             | ripping people off.
             | 
             | Not so similar after all
        
               | sophacles wrote:
               | > while the other is about a thief ripping people off
               | 
               | Is that what happened? I can imagine all sorts of
               | scenarios where that's not true. You got some better info
               | than the above comment on this?
        
       | loceng wrote:
       | Reminds me of when I my dad had acquired two decommissioned hard
       | drives that were used to store seafloor scans for the Halifax
       | harbour and surrounding areas.
       | 
       | From my own poor recollection, their dimensions were about 2' x
       | 3' x 1.5' - and obviously quite heavy.
       | 
       | They stored 1GB each.
        
       | pearjuice wrote:
       | Imagine if they weren't wiped and receiving (a snapshot of) the
       | entire Netflix catalogue.
        
         | hhmc wrote:
         | I assume that content has all been comprehensively pirated
         | already. So apart from the optics, it's not clear it would do
         | much real damage.
        
           | dachryn wrote:
           | it would just be a convenient nice to have, but indeed add no
           | value over saving time and internet bandwidth
        
         | rcarmo wrote:
         | The bits would be DRM encrypted, even in cached storage.
        
         | nly wrote:
         | Would the entire netflix catalogue fit on this node?
        
           | Namidairo wrote:
           | Even if the entire catalogue didn't fit on there, they mostly
           | exist as edge caches , so stuffing the most popular/upcoming
           | things on there and watching the hit rate is probably good
           | enough to reduce most of the needless transit.
           | 
           | That and they had different tiers of hardware I believe.
        
           | guywhocodes wrote:
           | Maybe not if there are many encodings.
        
           | helsinkiandrew wrote:
           | You could fit 13,000 4K movies in 262TB. But Netflix will
           | have versions for different resolutions/output devices pre
           | baked so I reckon (I wouldn't want to gamble to much on this)
           | that a single device wouldn't have everything.
        
             | OJFord wrote:
             | Working in the other direction is that the region locking
             | works by region you're in, not where you opened the
             | account. So an edge cache would presumably never have
             | titles that are only available in different parts of the
             | world.
        
           | hn8305823 wrote:
           | For and edge caching node, it doesn't need to. The vast
           | majority of traffic is for a relatively small subset of the
           | catalog that is popular that week/day/hour. Cache misses are
           | directed to more centralized nodes that do have the full
           | catalog (though not necessarily all on one server).
        
           | corobo wrote:
           | If you look into the deployment guides (.. I was a little
           | bored during lunch, lol. Also high scale tech is cool.) they
           | preload content based on where the device is going to be
           | deployed before shipping them out.
           | 
           | From there they have a "fill" window each day during the
           | ISP's low traffic period where Netflix pushes new content to
           | it.
           | 
           | > Each Open Connect Appliance (OCA) stores a portion of the
           | Netflix catalog, which in general is less than the complete
           | content library for a given region. Popularity changes, new
           | titles that are added to the service, re-encoded movies, and
           | routine software enhancements are all part of the nightly
           | updates, or fill, that each appliance must download to remain
           | current.
           | 
           | -- https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/deployment-guide/
           | 
           | I mean honestly in 2022 their catalogue might fit entirely (
           | :P ) but yeah looks like it's just a portion, comprised of
           | whatever's popular in the region
        
         | sschueller wrote:
         | I would be more interested in the auth keys and api to the
         | distribution node.
        
           | killingtime74 wrote:
           | Normally keys get rotated no?
        
         | crazysim wrote:
         | I think for most DRM they are stored and distributed pre-
         | encrypted. Encryption isn't performed on these servers, they
         | just shove bytes out.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-28 23:03 UTC)