I have just taken up a dedicated server with ECUI. Prior to this, all my domains were hosted on shared servers (mainly reseller Fasthosts account... http://www.communityzero.com/siteonsite/ .. little more to say about that except steer clear!)

I have been looking at the data transfer stats from the ECUI dedicated server router and they seem very much higher than they should be. Before moving over the domains to this server, they used about 5.2Gb/month.... both via the previous ISP`s stats and via analysis of the logs.

Today`s latest transfer shows nearly 1G/day and the domains are not fully transferred over yet (some DNS servers will still be out of date). This means that I will be using well over 30Gb/month which is 6x what I expected it to be and leaves less scope for adding domains.

I can see that both Tx and Rx are logged so the stats will be higher than expected (Fasthosts and logs just give Tx). However, the Rx seems very high relative to the Tx given that most of the activity is http. Also, I have been using pcAnywhere. However, I didn`t expect it to use that much data transfer. Also, I haven`t been using it as much today and the stats are still high.

I spoke to ECUI (as usual, very quick to reply!) and they said that this is because of the extra transfer used by DNS, Mail and anything else I am also serving from the dedicated server.

The question is.... is it normal for the total data transfer to be about 6x the logged http data transfer, given that it includes Rx, Tx , DNS, Mail, pcAnywhere and anything else that's generating traffic?

Simon

Pcanywhere, Dns , Mail Cannot be 6x times the http,
Mail could be if someone is doing heavy spam from your server,

But then again noone risks doing spam daily and being caught:D

Speak to them and let us know what happened, Are the monitoring your traffic through the switch port or through Mrtg logs,

Monitoring through logs is dangerous as if software goofs up then you have a problem ,

Ask them how are they monitoring the bandwith .

Keep us updated,

Regards
Manish Kapadia

An update to let eveyone know what happened.

After I had posted on this board I realised that I could get the Win2K lan connection stats from the server for the last 5 days (the server hasn't been rebooted over this time). This showed a more sensible 520,000,000 bytes Tx and 275,000,000 Rx. I contacted ECUI by telephone and asked why this didn't tally with the 2.7Gb the switch says I had used over these days. I was told that the switch 'days' may be more than 24hrs (up to 48hrs) because the switch reset occurs after the backups which themselves may cycle over 24hrs. This still didn't explain the large difference. However, ECUI said everything was working ok and that there was nothing they could do.

Meanwhile, the switch stats reset. In the first three hours after the reset it logged 438,000,000 Tx and 667,000,000 Rx (just over a Gb). The Win2K lan connection logged 36,000,000 Tx and 6,000,000 Rx (0.04 Gb) over this period.

Today, things seem ok. Over the last 9hrs since the above stats, the switch logged an extra 70,000,000 and the lan connection 64,000,000... about right.

Still not sure what's going on

Simon

Originally posted by surerange
.

Meanwhile, the switch stats reset. In the first three hours after the reset it logged 438,000,000 Tx and 667,000,000 Rx (just over a Gb). The Win2K lan connection logged 36,000,000 Tx and 6,000,000 Rx (0.04 Gb) over this period.


Still not sure what's going on

Simon

This is surely dangerous, Why sould you be paying more for a switch problem, Our company was considering a win2k server from them but would have second thoughts if such things are happening,

Their low prices would be nullified by the bandwith overrages that we would have to pay,

Regards
Manish Kapadia

Over the last 15 hrs the Lan transfer stats have been similar to the switch stats so I am slightly less worried about this now :-)

Here is the latest ECUI response...

"First and foremost, unless your a magician you would have an extremely difficult time comparing "exact" numbers from the NIC to the switch, both update immediately however the web page you view for the switch port updates periodically.

Secondly, you claim a 1GB transfer in 3 hours, which is possible - however your most recent period is only 1 GB and I assure you it`s not a 3 hours period.

Last and foremost, Understand you are metered at the switch port. Plain and simple every single byte. There is no discussion about it, this is where your metered and billed based upon the information at that point. Just as your electric meter turns so do your switch port counters.

If you run an open SMTP relay and 200GB of SPAM passes through your server you will be billed. If you have improper permission settings and someone manages to set up a WAREZ FTP site and they upload and download 200GB, again you will be billed. This is the same as if you set your air conditioner to 60 and leave home accidentally forgetting about it and return a week later to find the mistake. You still are responsible for the electric bill, and the same goes for data transfers.

There are multiple points which would validate a claim to an inaccuracy of a ports transfer count, the fiber transceiver of every switch maintains a count for the entire switch, therefore at any given point totals from all ports can be validated against the transceiver, the switches transceiver is connected to a Layer 3 Command module which again maintains a Tx and Rx value which may be compared to the switches actual transceiver. The likely hood of all being incorrect would be astronomical.

As stated earlier switch port counts stand and are the determining factor in data transfer for dedicated server billing. You have expensed more support time and time of your own watching and questioning the validity of your data transfer then the cost of the actual transfer for the last 10 (ten) days would even be, if you were actually over your limit and being billed for same.

I`m sorry if this appears harsh, however this topic is closed, and you need be aware that port counts are not disputable unless we verify an actual discrepancy between the total of all switch port counters and the layer 3 Command module counter for that individual switch."

Some people have emailed me asking what finally happened. Well, since the last post (nearly 2 days) and not being a magician, the switch stats have followed the Win2k 'Local Area Connection Status' stats. I still don't know why the switch logged several Gb of 'extra' traffic over a very short period when I first took over the server but it doesn't seem to be happening any more.

In answer to my original question, serving DNS, iMail and taking account of Rx and Tx, I am now using about 1.5x the http transfer (just Tx) I was logging when the sites were on shared hosting. This might help someone when calculating data transfer for ECUI.

While I am unhappy with the way ECUI responded to this incident, everything else is working 100% and all other support issues have been attended to very quickly and efficiently. I would still recommend their services.

Simon

Simon (surerange),

We are also trying to escape from Fasthosts... I looked at ECUI but got no reply to email enquiries (resent twice) so didn't pursue it.

The low prices and the huge amount of stuff bundled made me very suspicious that they are actually offering "virtual" dedicated servers rather than a genuine "one physical machine per person". Can you comment on this -- are you confident you really have one whole physical machine to yourself?

I did ask ECUI about this, but no reply...

Would you recommend ECUI? Are you in UK btw?

What spec server are you using, for how many accounts?

We are encouraging people to move to our Linux dedicated server -- a dream after the FH bad experience -- but some folk will still want Windows.

As stated earlier switch port counts stand and are the determining factor in data transfer for dedicated server billing. You have expensed more support time and time of your own watching and questioning the validity of your data transfer then the cost of the actual transfer for the last 10 (ten) days would even be, if you were actually over your limit and being billed for same.

I`m sorry if this appears harsh, however this topic is closed, and you need be aware that port counts are not disputable unless we verify an actual discrepancy between the total of all switch port counters and the layer 3 Command module counter for that individual switch."


I don't think the attitude of these remarks is very empathetic toward the legitimate and quite natural concerns surerange had. I would not use these people on this basis. I am a newbie getting ever closer to needing a dedicated. I could not have confidence in my host if I could not ask "dumb" questions.

Wallaby

I am surprised you didn't get a reply from ECUI. If you email during US office hours you usually get a reply within 20 to 30 mins, else they will reply first thing (7:15!) the next day.

Yes, it is a dedicated server not shared with anyone else. You use pcAnywhere to administer it as if it were your own machine... access to *everything*.

Some of the 'stuff' they advertise is on their shared servers... SQLServer, iMail, ... so that's why it's cheap. This is clear if your read their web pages. However, you can run these things on your own server (at extra cost of course). You will need to run iMail (extra 24/month) and DNS (free) on your server if you have more than 6 i/p addreses... again this is clear if you have a good look at their web pages.

Yes, I am in the UK. I have the 'corporate server'. All accounts are for in-house use... only 12 web sites.

I would still recommend ECUI.

Simon

Just to say that I'm a very satisfied ECUI customer. I choose ECUI after some suggestions that I read on this forum and I'm very glad I did.

Indeed the above respons is somewhat harch, but what I always notice about there responses (and appreciate) is that they are elaborate and honest. so is this one

Rob Siera

Originally posted by rsiera
Just to say that I'm a very satisfied ECUI customer. I choose ECUI after some suggestions that I read on this forum and I'm very glad I did.

Indeed the above respons is somewhat harch, but what I always notice about there responses (and appreciate) is that they are elaborate and honest. so is this one

Rob Siera

how long have you been with them ??

OH and what package did you get ???

We too are looking for Windows dedicated servers and are also considering ECUI.

It is interesting to note that ECUI is offering to install
MS SQLServer on the server for only $54 per month. This seems to be very different from others who offer it for hundreds of $.
The shared SQL database seems to be however $15 for 25MB at $ 15.00 .

Any comments on this ?.

Matra

I agree with matra

they give mssql , cold fusion , imail server all these so cheap

and these are really expensive piece of softwares specially the sql server.
Cant understand how

Regards
Manish Kapadia

MS SQLServer on the server for only $54 per month. That is rather cheap. Since we also run MS SQL 2000, I know how much it costs and that is really low.

Not sure if that is good or bad :)

Originally posted by mpkapadia
I agree with matra

they give mssql , cold fusion , imail server all these so cheap

and these are really expensive piece of softwares specially the sql server.
Cant understand how

Regards
Manish Kapadia

Aloha this has been a HMMMMM for me to

if ya get a good price and can spread it around I guess ya do not make much on it but eventually will
my thoughts
well maybe they are not as greedy and making a OK profit on software but a break even as a way to tease you in to there service

the other thought is that another thread had some funny numbers about bandwith and he wrote back a letter that was very good sounding as he knew how to do this
shortly after it stopped ????
hmmmm mayvbe they got caught and decided not to pull this scam on him (this is just thoughts not for sure so do not say I am slamming them it is just thoughts)
and they will overcharge on bandwith to make up for it .
again just a thought

there win2k server does look like a good deal
but a little leary of them still