Hi Tim,
I would check the spec of your Optus Cable connection.
I think you will find upload is limited to 256kbits/sec
Downloads are dependent on where you are, how many you share your cable loop with etc
Here is the rate table
Easy Start Up to 9,900kbps/128kbps 100MB 100MB + 200MB 'yes' Data $29.95 $19.95
Light Up to 9,900kbps/128kbps 300MB 300MB + 600MB 'yes' Data $39.95 $29.95
Sprint Up to 9,900kbps/128kbps 2GB 2GB + 4GB 'yes' Data $49.95 $39.95
Advantage Up to 9,900kbps/256kbps 7 GB 7GB + 14GB 'yes' Data $59.95 $49.95
Power Up to 9,900kbps/256kbps 20GB 20GB + 40GB 'yes' Data $79.95 $69.95
Cheers David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:27:04 +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> Tim Churches wrote:
>> Amazon S3 may be of interest to subscribers to this list, both software developers and end-
>> users.
>>
>> Here is the blurb from the S3 Web page at
>>
> ..
>> Lots of things, but a few things spring immediately to mind.
>>
>> 1) Off-site secondary storage of back-up files for practices or clinics running their own EMR
>> systems or other clinical applications on locally-hosted servers. The advantage of the simple
>> API provided by S3 is that the EMR/clinical application for a practice/clinic could automate
>> the back-up-and-copy-to-S3 cycle, and could even automate periodic test retrievals and restores
>> (to a separate test database or file system on the clinic's EMR server). I wouldn't trust the
>> Amazon assurances of privacy for the data (as Amazon are still subject to US search warrants
>> and court orders for example, as well as simple security blunders - so any patient data would
>> need to be strongly encrypted before sending it to S3 for off-site backup storage - but that
>> should be routine practice for any off-site back-ups of patient data on removable or
>> transportable media anyway). The cost structure for the S3 service would make such use very
>> cheap, since the back-up data are sent once and would be rarely accessed, so the bandwidth
>> charges should be quite modest, and the per-month storage charges are very cheap. Cheap enough
>> for even small clinics in developing and transitional countries to afford, assuming they have
>> broadband Internet access to enable the upload of back-ups to S3 in the first place. Certainly
>> cheap enough for even small practices/clinics in rich countries - no more than $10-$20 per
>> month I would think, maybe much less.
>>
>
> I had a play with Amazon S3 over the weekend. Well, I tried to, because it was down for about 22
> hours from Sat evening to Sunday evening, which puts their claims of 99.99% uptime in doubt.
> However, it was only launched two weeks ago so some teething problems might be expected. I expect
> they will iron out the bugs and achieve their reliability targets, eventually.
>
> Anyway, I did manage to store various bits of data and some files on it, and to get them back. Of
> primary interest is the transfer speed for large files eg encrypted backups. I stored a 15MB
> encrypted file on S3 in 10 minutes. Retrieval took about the same length of time. according to my
> online S3 account summary, I now owe Amazon US$0.01 - of course, the longer I leave the file
> there on S3, the more I will be charged - US$0.15 per GB per month for storage - but it is not
> going to send me to the poorhouse.
>
> The primary issue is the transfer speed. I am using Optus cable, which uploads and downloads to
> local Web servers at over 500 kB (kilobytes, not kilobits) per second - so at full speed, my 15MB
> upload should have taken just 30 seconds. Thus, the rate-limiting step seems to be elsewhere -
> perhaps the speed of the link to the US where the Amazon servers are located, or perhaps Amazon
> is throttling upload and download speeds to and from S3 to preserve their bandwidth. Anyway, the
> point is that 15MB in 10 minutes is probably what you can expect here in Oz, regardless of what
> sort of Internet connection you have (as long as it is not a dial-up modem).
>
> Is this fast enough to be useful for offsite encrypted back-up copies? Well, its fast enough for
> our purposes, which is backup storage of encrypted ad hoc public health outbreak data collections
> which are often collected "on the road". But for a 3 or 4GB practice backup? Let's see, 15MB in
> 10 minutes equates to 3GB in 50 hours.
>
> Hmmm, that effectively rules it out for offsite GP encrypted backup copies. Pity. I'll continue
> to collect data points on transfer speed. Perhaps the forthcoming Google Gdrive and the start-up
> OmniDrive online data storage services, which are expected to be priced similarly but which may
> have servers located in Australia, will be much faster. We'll see when they are available. I
> still think that Amazon S3 might be of interest to radiology practices wishing to provide a cheap
> store-and-forward facility to clients for their digitised image files, which tend to be rather
> large and thus not well suited to SMTP-based (email) transport - without either party needing to
> run 24x7 Web services (Amazon S3 does that for you and both the sender and receiver of an image
> file would just act as clients to it). It would also work very nicely as a store-and-forward
> facility for interchange of HL7 messages - Amazon S3 would effectively be the unintelligent data-
> store-and-retrieve middleman - but gee, they don't charge much - I suspect that the bill for even
> a large path lab might only be a few tens of dollars per month. Some open source code to add the
> smarts and encryption at the sending and receiving ends and you have the makings of a very cheap
> but potentially very robust secure health data exchange service with an architecture rather
> similar to that offered by Healthlink etc, but with negligible per-message costs. Add Google and
> OmniDrive into the picture as alternative unintelligent data-store-and-retrieve middlemen, which
> the client software could automatically fall back to and you would really have something. There's
> a business opportunity there for someone or some group to, um, make almost no money at all, but
> to receive accolades heaped upon their head(s).
>
> Tim C
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1467 (20060402) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
