I need a raq4 or P3 700 with 256 ram and 50 GB of transfer for $150 no set up fee.

So, you are saying you want everything for nothing. :D

well $150 is not "Nothing" version12 had a similar offer raqshack has similar offer plus the 250 setup fee which I dont like :D

At the price your asking. Your asking for the server virtually free. There is alot more behind pricing for regular intel server and cobalts that go into our quotes. But at $150 a month for an intel box you are asking for the world.

you get what you pay for!

you want a
P3 700
with 256 ram
and 50 GB of transfer
for $150
no set up fee

if Jay or I going to offer you this, what are we going to make?? it easy at least for me to give you this price, however, it is not worth it. I am not going to make anything out of this, so what is the point of opening a business???

if you want a RAQ4r, then the best thing to do is to go with rackshack.net. you will pay 129 per month and 250 setup fee, it is the cheapest you can get. however, put in your mind that they are hosting more then 3,000 RAQ ( at least that what they say) each of those Raqs has a 150G. and they only have 3 DS3 ( 45*3 = 135mbps)

so 150G * 3000 = 450,000G / 300 = 1,500mbps

so they are only having 135mbps and they are offering 1,500mbps

so (1,500/135)*100% = 1111%

it means that they are using more then 1111% of their network !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think what they are doing is hoping that no one use those 150G!

anyway, to tell you the truth kickster, you will never find a bettre price then what they are offering, so if you really want to get Raq then they are going to be the best.

however, if you want P3 700 with 256 ram, then you need to go at least above the 200

so kickster, do you want 24/7 tech support with the $150 plan????? :D

Makes you wonder what's going to happen to RackShack when more and more people start using a bigger chunk of that 150GB. I'm willing to bet right now their average server is using less than 10GB. I'm thinking if and when these people start using some real bandwidth...

I doubt they'll ever go bankrupt because of it. But I wouldn't be shocked if sometime down the line peak usage periods could become somewhat sluggish.

Josh

24/7 support is a must. In case of server problem I need a phone call instead of a simple email.

No Seriously what can I get for $200 no set up fee. (I hate those setup fees) I dont use much bandwidth.

I can give for $200 a month no setup fee 6 month contract

PIII 700
256 Ram
20GB HD
25GB transfer
Plesk Control Panel Free

With True live 24/7 support, never get a voicemail system or a phone system.

when do you need the server?

Originally posted by Planet Z
Makes you wonder what's going to happen to RackShack when more and more people start using a bigger chunk of that 150GB. I'm willing to bet right now their average server is using less than 10GB. I'm thinking if and when these people start using some real bandwidth...

I doubt they'll ever go bankrupt because of it. But I wouldn't be shocked if sometime down the line peak usage periods could become somewhat sluggish.

Josh

I guess that would be when they would have to get another line. If they have 3000 RaQs, then they are making about $400,000 per month! I'm sure they could afford more lines when needed. You have also think about the rush hours and the burstable traffic.

:D

I have tried many before this is great

I currently have a dedicated server from Cabal Studios, they great this is what im paying.

FreeBSD Dedicated Server
700 Mhz Pentium III
256MB SDRAM PC100
20GB IDE Hard Drive
4 Static IPs
Intel Pro/100+ 10/100 NIC Card
65GB Monthly Data Transfers

This is all for $225 and $129 SETUP, the speeds are great customer service is excellent.

25 GB is too little I need at least 50 GB to be safe (right now I am not even using 5 GB) Contract is also out of the question. Most hosts are unreliable and I can not risk my online business on that.

Originally posted by kickster
25 GB is too little I need at least 50 GB to be safe (right now I am not even using 5 GB) Contract is also out of the question. Most hosts are unreliable and I can not risk my online business on that.

Well, what can I say to that really, you don't want to risk your business but you don't want to pay for quality service? You get what you pay for in this business (with a few exceptions).

So my advice is get your wallet out and pay your way.

hummm ... 150.00 ...

NO !!

Instead of knocking someone because you don't want to provide what he/she is asking, why don' t you tell that person the best that you can do. If he wasn't looking for a good deal that would closely match a particular host's offer, he wouldn't be posting here.

Originally posted by CRego3D
hummm ... 150.00 ...

NO !!

Very constructive.

Originally posted by zolbian


I guess that would be when they would have to get another line. If they have 3000 RaQs, then they are making about $400,000 per month! I'm sure they could afford more lines when needed. You have also think about the rush hours and the burstable traffic.

i think it would be fair to mention if you have 3000 servers running 150 gigs a month each you would also have a bandwidth bill of 1,384,615.00 give or take a few dollars

Steve

Originally posted by Keeg


i think it would be fair to mention if you have 3000 servers running 150 gigs a month each you would also have a bandwidth bill of 1,384,615.00 give or take a few dollars

Steve


True! However, you as a webhost should know that people don't average more than 5-10GB/month (if even that). :)

your not limited to 20 GB they can do what ever specs you require, thats upto you :cool:

Originally posted by Keeg


i think it would be fair to mention if you have 3000 servers running 150 gigs a month each you would also have a bandwidth bill of 1,384,615.00 give or take a few dollars

Steve

I'm not quite sure how you came up with that huge figure.

3000 x 150 = 450,000 Gb per month.

Now if they paid $1 per Gb then they would be paying $450,000 per month.


But let's take another look, if we look at the cost of an OC12 from Level3, the average figure per Mbit is $183.75 per Mbit, so let's call it $200 for the sake of arguing and the fact that most traffic will be off-net.

1Mbit per second gives roughly 316Gb per month of transfer, an OC12 does 622Mbit/s which gives us:

622 x 316 = 196552 Gb per month.

So we are going to need roughly 2.3 OC12s =

450,000 / 196522 = 2.3

Which costs us a total of:

1 OC12 = 622 x 200
= $124,400

2.3 OC12 = $124,400 x 2.3
= $286,120 per month.

Plus monthly standing cost of 3 OC12s:
= 3 x 10,000
= $30,000

Total
= $316,120 per month

So their we have it, everyone could use their 150Gb and they could still make a profit each month on bandwidth.

The only other thing with these rough calculations is the local loop cost.

The problem with those calculations is how much bandwidth you're assuming you get per mbps.

1Mbit per second gives roughly 316Gb per month of transfer...

That's assuming 100% usage all the time. There's no way you can possibly get that. You'll always have peaks that are much higher than your low usage times. Additionally, you always need to have extra capacity since it's not always easy to just add on an OC12.

The point is somewhat moot, though, since there's no way all the customers are going to be using 150GB of bandwidth either. The only way to really figure out how viable what they're doing is to know what the average amount of bandwidth each RaQ is consuming.

Josh

Josh, I realise that you never get 100% utilisation out of a line, my point was to illustrate that they could easily afford to give everyone 150Gb per month and that the figure of over $1m was not correct.

The other thing my figures don't take into account is that not very many NOCs pay the advertised rate for their lines e.g.

UUNet (T3):
Advertised - $6k per 3Mbit, I can't find the price now for a full T3, but I believe it was somewhere around $30k

The other week when someone I know spoke to UUNet you could get a full T3 for $18k, quite a bit of difference.

helloo please read the title of this topic. We are trying to find a low cost host not to discuss the inner working of a web hosting firm.

I spoke with a guy at UUNet the other day.. he said $28k for a full T3, and in increments of 3mbps, $7k for the minimum of 3mbps.


Andrew

kickster, you should be happy this thread is staying near the top rather than dying; that means it is more likely to be seen by a web host interested in your criteria.

Maybe I missed it in the conversations. Did anyone take into account the lease price for the actual servers for the host?

I guess its kind of pointless. Overselling a circuit is a pretty common tactic in the business obviously. Might be a good excercise for these buyers to factor in what they use say 5-10 GB like our initial poster but wants 100 GB. Seems alot of the companies out there are selling throughput in chunks of 50 or 100 at a time for $1 GB which is not that far over cost for most hosts. IF said buyer only uses 10 of that 100 GB chunk he is actually paying $10 a GB based on his actual throughput.

Food for thought.

Regards,