Howdy -
Been a user for awhile now. I think I'm on the cheapest plan.

I'm starting to slow add some multimedia - nothing major, a few short Ogg Theora clips embedded via html5 (with java player fallback). I've noticed that video loads kind of slower, much slower than some sites with bigger videos embedded same way.

I'm guessing being on the cheapest plan probably limits available bandwidth, I'm curious about what plans offer more on demand bandwidth.

I don't think I need it yet, but next year I probably will be adding several more video files. Is this something that can be custom added to existing account (similar to adding IP addresses) or does it require a different plan?

It's not really that big of a deal, I'm just curious what it would cost to improve.

Example page (works best in FF 3.5):

http://www.shastaherps.org/herps/Northe ... multimedia

Thanks for suggestions.

Bandwidith rate cap is the same regardless of plan. 50mbps

Extra transfer above what your plan allows is $0.10/gb.

When your bandwidth usage gets above say 30mbps average or you are hitting the 50mbps max regularly you can submit a ticket to linode and they can bump the limit up. Then all you need to do is reboot.

So it's not a bandwidth rate issue then, that should be plenty.
I presume ram?

Maybe having APC cache it would help but APC file caching conflicts with my database abstraction layer (pear::mdb2) so I have file caching turned off - I guess I'll have to play with APC and figure out how to get it to cache everything except for pear files, and specifically cache multimedia files.

No, you have a completely different problem than server specs: that ten-second video you linked to is approximately 5.3MB.

That means your video is being encoded at about 4.4mbps. For comparison, YouTube's "high quality" videos are barely 1mbps, and their 720p HD videos are just about 2mbps.

Basically, you've got a video there that is 2-4+ times bigger than it should be for reasonable quality. That's why it's loading so slowly.

Edit: I accidentally had everything multiplied by 10, edited with correct numbers. I'm not awake.

Ah - OK.
I used the default quality with ffmpeg2theora. I guess I should specify lower.

Using a video quality of 2 with ffmpeg2theora produces a much smaller file. Re-encoding lets me fix aspect ratio at same time (i didn't know about rectangular vs square pixels when I first did the encoding ...)

Thanks!

4.4mbit is hardly excessive for 720p video. That's not atypical for good quality 720mbit video. It's a bit higher than what "scene" encodes of television clock in at, and a bit lower than what commercial services such as iTunes seem to encode at.

EDIT: YouTube's video quality is poor at best, and should not be used as a reference for anything but low to medium bitrate encoding.

Which might be good, if you're going to be spreading around a bunch of viral videos and don't want to pay an enormous bandwidth bill.

Now if it was a movie of your kid taking their first steps, I would want that available in a higher quality to show my parents.

(Not that I would wish my offspring onto this world...)

I never said 4.4mbit was "excessive" for anything except the video he posted, which wasn't even 480p.



I think you're confusing the horrific quality of most YouTube videos with the quality YouTube is capable of. Most YouTube videos are uploaded by people who don't know what they're doing, or just have a crappy source to begin with (1MP cellphone and laptop webcams, for example).

These days, YouTube is all-h.264 for newly-uploaded videos. If you feed a high-quality source into a good h.264 encoder, you will get surprisingly good quality even at 1-2mbit. Some videos look perfect even at 0.5mbit. This applies even on YouTube.

For SD content, 1-2mbit/s is certainly sufficient. For high-definition content, I'd consider 3-4mbit/s to be the minimum for 720p.

The OP's video is SD, certainly, so 4.4mbit is excessive for that; I was hesitant to view the video at work, and his post didn't specify.

Considering the sample footage is hand-held, quality gains (via reduction in complexity) might be had by using image stabilization software (such as vReveal). The reduction in motion should make the video substantially more compressible while simultaneously improving the quality of the video (by making the "subject" easier to see).

That said, if huge bulk bandwidth is required, Linode bandwidth can be supplemented with a CDN mirror for about 3.9 cents per gig to take some of the load off.

Hi,
an upgrade might not be what you want. Have a look at Linodes prices on the main homepage for Linode http://www.Linode.com
See if that helps!
Hope the video issue got resolved!
Regards, --Keith