I hosted a very high traffic site at TBLC.com for a week on their $40 UNIX unlimited bandwidth plan. They told me that bandwidth was not a problem (my site used 200 GB per month from JPGs and static HTML files), but the sheer load ended up using 40% of the CPU time on their server, so they made me move.

Now they have a Windows 2000 hosting solution that they say can handle the CPU load of a heavy traffic site:

http://www.tblc.com/hosting/win/standard-level.htm

I'm thinking of using that hosting plan for some of my high bandwidth consuming sites. But my partner is weary about using any Windows server for reliability reasons.

So, I have two questions:

1. Is Windows 2000 reliable for web serving?
2. Is TBLC.com's network reliable?

we can have another "there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth" discussion... or you can ask them exactly how much bandwidth is their "unlimited" bandwidth.

if they don't give you a straigh out answer, as in they still say its unlimited... then look in their AUP or terms of services etc and find the hidden clause that actually limits your bandwidth use

I think the unlimited bandwidth campaigning by some hosting companies are very misleading and its really easy to fall into

if your site is using 200gb, i think the best way to go would be looking into getting a dedicated server ;)

g'luck

Alpha: I've talked with TBLC, they've told me using 200 GB is not a problem, and I've even hosted a site with them until the CPU usage got too great.

I am fully aware of the risks of using an unlimited bandwidth host. I am ready to change hosts a few times if necessary, and will back up my files externally. I do not have the money for a dedicated server.

I just want to know the answer to my two questions above (is Windows 2000 reliable for webhosting, and what do you think of TBLC.com's network connectivity).

3 thing.. first.. I'm pretty sure that 200 GB of trafic it's a problem for any virtual host.
second. Windows use a lot more resources than linux.. so.. if your CPU usage is a problem for a unix box.. I'm sure that the problem with windows will be worst.
3- I don't trust in anybody that offer unlimited bandwidth

While I agree with the whole "Unlimited Bandwidth" crap going on and to not trust it, he's not concerned about the bandwidth. If the host says 200gb is fine, it probably is! 200gb is quite a bit of traffic! He wants to know about CPU loads, not bandwidth. I'm sick of all this unlimited bandwidth talk, especially when it's not the focus of the thread.

If I had any experience with high loads on win2k, I'd comment on it, but I agree with Jedito. If it's too high on Unix, it's _likely_ to be much too high for win2k. Altho win2k does use its resources rather nicely (I've been impressed more than once), Unix just does it better, IMHO. :)

1) Win2k is fine for hosting web sites. Hundreds of hosts use them, and some even specialize in win2k servers.
2) I can't answer this -- I have never even heard of TBLC.net. Sorry. :(

xeran.com gives you the same deal basically but with 300mb for 19.95 a month. they are very reliable. i just recently put my fourth site on their server,

The real question is what was causing the high load. I don't know of anything about Windows that would make a Windows box outperform a similarly spec'd linux or bsd box (I would expect just the opposite, but it's not worth arguing about and I don't have much experience with Windows servers). If the Windows box that they can put you on is more powerful than the unix box you were on before, then it may well be able to handle a site that moves 200 gb of static data a month without putting too much load on the system. If the boxes are both similarly spec'd and have similar numbers and types of accounts on them, I don't think that swithing to the Windows account is the answer. I would definitely ask them if the Windows box they want to put you on is more powerful than the unix box that you were on.


I feel that I have to throw in my $0.02 on the unlimited bandwidth thing. It sounds like they shut you down before for excessive bandwidth usage. If the site is all static files, then getting enough system resources to serve up that unlimited bandwidth would seem to be part of the package. If the load was from cgi scripts then they might have an argument, but even a relatively static high-bandwidth site will put some strain on a server. If they won't tolerate that extra load on their server, then how can they really be offering unlimited bandwidth?

Best of luck with whatever solution you choose.

-joe
http://EasternSkiing.com

Originally posted by opus
xeran.com gives you the same deal basically but with 300mb for 19.95 a month. they are very reliable. i just recently put my fourth site on their server,
Are you kidding???
another unlimited bandwidth!!!
must be a joke.
:angry:

haters to the left of me, haters to the right of me

i'm just saying xeran.com is reliable if you wanna got the "unlimited" route. if you snoop around most hosts TOS you can find out what they consider "unlimited" bandwidth is. I think phpwebhosting.com considers 3gigs qualifies for unlimited and some host simply have the attitude of "as long as you don't strain our server"

anyhoo, do what you gotta do.:cool:

We have the unlimited icon back. :sickface:

Unlimited does not exist. They'll close your site when it becomes unprofitable to them (presume they're being billed at $3 per gig, or even if they have their own lines kbps to GB/m at about $2 per gig), they can do this because they'll have a section in terms and conditions to stop your site using excessive resources; which is defined at their discretion.