FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2278277265> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2278277265 startingPage "99" @default.
• W2278277265 abstract "As community colleges plant to incorporate rich media into their courses and programs, the costs and benefits of traditional, centralized content delivery networks (CDNs) versus peer-to-peer (P2P) networks emerge as a key issue. Here's a look at which applications work best with P2P, how to leverage P2P technology alongside traditional means of delivery, like CDNs, and how to evaluate these technologies for any number of current and emerging applications. ********** The demand for rich media delivered via the Internet is exploding in the realm of education as well as entertainment and business as the quality of content online improves dramatically and reaches ever wider audiences. To meet this growing demand, many new solutions for content delivery are coming to market, with a growing number of innovative new solutions, such as P2P and content delivery networks (CDNs *) being offered alongside traditional CDNs. While community colleges, have for the most part, stuck with traditional CDNs for delivering their content, P2P has the potential to upend the economics associated with enabling high-quality video delivery. P2P content delivery holds such promise that if you don't already have a P2P strategy, rest assured your competition does. Peer-to-peer overview As a starting point, it is helpful to understand how peer-based models differ from the traditional content delivery models. In the traditional CDN model, the intelligence and capacity of the system is centralized and located in a core set of servers, while clients are simply mute consumers in the delivery process. The opposite is true in peer-based systems, where users contribute content they have already consumed back to other users of the application. This allows considerable intelligence to be located at the edge of the network, within the peers, and distributes the resources required for content delivery throughout the internet. The result is a far more efficient delivery model at scale, but it does not guarantee a minimum level of resource availability, as is the case in the centralized CDN. Conversely, the CDN cannot guarantee enough infrastructure is deployed at any given time or place to meet high levels of demand. In the peer model, additional infrastructure is created on the spot with high demand in the form of more users. Such are the pros and cons associated with each model. Using a film clip in a single section of a history or nursing class for example, is simply a matter of having technology appropriate to the size of the room and number of students: a VCR and large television monitor, a computer with a DVD monitor and ceiling mounted projector. Having seven sections of History 138 (Contemporary World History) view Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) along with Nuremberg Trials (1947--a Soviet documentary) presents much more complex problems. Similarly, having multiple sections of Nursing 213 (Adult Medical--Surgical Nursing 3) view film clips of a surgical procedure and review pre- and post-op x-rays requires a system robust enough to support multiple simultaneous accesses. While asynchronous modalities (such as online) provide some buffering, the increase in online offerings and enrollments now presents similar problems to synchronous modalities such as face-to-face or interactive video. To harness the strengths of each, commercial solutions are now coming to market that combine elements of traditional CDNs with P2P technology to create a hybrid or peer-assisted CDN. While there are many categories of pure play P2P technologies, this review will focus on the offerings, beginning with the typical applications of content delivery. When is P2P appropriate? Peer-based systems work best when a large number of peers are available to exchange the content being accelerated. Of course, you need only one peer with content to make the system function, as is often the case with personal communication. …" @default.
• W2278277265 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2278277265 creator A5024088774 @default.
• W2278277265 date "2008-03-22" @default.
• W2278277265 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2278277265 title "Technology Review: Evaluating Peer-to-Peer Solutions for Online Courses and Programs" @default.
• W2278277265 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2278277265 type Work @default.
• W2278277265 sameAs 2278277265 @default.
• W2278277265 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2278277265 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2278277265 hasAuthorship W2278277265A5024088774 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C153083717 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C153349607 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C2778898579 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C2986847828 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C31258907 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C512170562 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C534932454 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConcept C93996380 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C110875604 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C119857082 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C136764020 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C142362112 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C153083717 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C153349607 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C2778898579 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C2986847828 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C31258907 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C41008148 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C49774154 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C512170562 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C534932454 @default.
• W2278277265 hasConceptScore W2278277265C93996380 @default.
• W2278277265 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2278277265 hasLocation W22782772651 @default.
• W2278277265 hasOpenAccess W2278277265 @default.
• W2278277265 hasPrimaryLocation W22782772651 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W1488578891 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W1525870016 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W1570576122 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W167228354 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W1981519640 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W1984648351 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2004723058 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W201201596 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2084040949 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2158013756 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2330797169 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2395781592 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2461633019 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2477031853 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W258460892 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W2987658599 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W3123016418 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W84539180 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W886730880 @default.
• W2278277265 hasRelatedWork W967353490 @default.
• W2278277265 hasVolume "14" @default.
• W2278277265 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2278277265 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2278277265 magId "2278277265" @default.
• W2278277265 workType "article" @default.