Hi,

I have been contacted by a dedicated server host who is offering me this package:

Pentium III 1GHz
256MB RAM
40.0GB HDD
Dual 3Com 10/100 NIC
20 IP's (additional IP's $0.50 each per month)
65GB transfer per month
RedHat 6.1/6.2/7.0/7.1 (others available)
Additional charge for control panel (optional)

Is this a good deal for $300/month?

Thanks.

It's decent, but not exactly what I'd consider a "great" deal. It all depends on their level of service and connection. But simply for price vs. features, it's an okay deal but not one of the best I've seen.

I would be interested if they have Windows ;)

They have an 8Mbps connection if I am not mistaken. Is that good enough?

8Mbps isn't bad, although, many providers have much faster connectivity.

It all depends on how much of it is being used.

Originally posted by zenwoo
They have an 8Mbps connection if I am not mistaken. Is that good enough?

I though 8Mbps is not good enough.
Consider buy a service to NOC which have at least T3 connection.

Well a 8mbps connection is not the best out there, a T3 is 45mbps, so you can see the huge difference already, there are hosts out there that have oc3-oc192 they are the ones you might want to look into, oc3 being 155mbps and oc192 going over 3gbps.

Originally posted by cabalstudios
Well a 8mbps connection is not the best out there, a T3 is 45mbps, so you can see the huge difference already, there are hosts out there that have oc3-oc192 they are the ones you might want to look into, oc3 being 155mbps and oc192 going over 3gbps.

very true ... but even if they have an OC192, your server may still be connected to a 10mbps switch such that you may never be able to burst more than 10mbps any way .... A lot of web host companies do get a capped bandwith from the NOC where they are hosted, be it at 5 mbps or 10 mbps, or something else ...

I agree, 8 mbps is not that much, but I also wonder whether this 8 mbps might be a capped bandwith that the host get from the NOC which itself has a T3, OC3, etc .... If this is true, then congestion might not always be a problem at all; the host can always double or tripple its 8 mbps capped bandwith , within minutes, when congestion becomes an issue.

Also, a lot of people think that an OC12 is much better than a T3. Not always true ... what good is an OC12 if it's almost/fully saturated, say ... at 98%? A T3 which is only used at its 30% capacity would be much better than an OC12 at 98% of its capacity :)

cheers,
:beer:

dektong,

thanks for pointing that out my friend, I forgot to mention the switch and hub system, that people use.

zenwoo, what you might want to ask you provider, is what the 8mbps is tapped into, and what type of switch/hub network they use, and who there backbone provider is?

dektong,
talking about saturation, 4 years ago, I used to run an network for BT (internal network) which used to run on a t3, eventually, after realising that the network was only using 2% of the connectivity I downgraded to a t1. Now I wish that I had never downgraded it to a t1, as BT are now using over 98%, and the time and effort its going to take to put it back to a t3 I wouldn't bother. The helpdesk at BT has over 700 PCs networked, with mainframes, network server, sun server, the works.
So, this had told me always to go for the solution you can afford.

Just my 2 cents

Is it just me (in thinking)? or is their any host that actually has OC-12 internet bandwidth. I'm getting sick of hosts advertising the theortical capacity of their dark fibre rather than their actual bandwidth connections.

thanks for everyone's replies. they are based in Malaysia and are multihoming with 3 of the nation's largest ISPs - 4Mbps with NTT, a Japanese provider, 2Mbps with Jaring, the nation's first ISP and 2Mbps with TMnet, the nation's second ISP owned by the nation's largest telco. they said less than 30% of their multihomed connection is utilized at present and they do plan to add more lines when it exceeds 45%

thank you to everyone who sent me offers, I will have a look at them and get back to you as soon as possible.

btw, would it be better to colocate or to get a dedicated server?

thanks again :)

hehe, more questions.

Its your preference, if you colocate, you have to configure,setup,maintain the server at your own costs.

If you go dedicated, then the service provider, will configure,setup the server until you have a service agreement with them. Hardware failures, should not be at your expense.

There are other solutions like rent-to-own, some hosts will allow you to buy the server from then after a certain contract length, they will also probably charge you an additional fee for that.

Alright, regarding co-location, the same company who offered me the dedicated server deal charges $85 per month for 3U of space, but the problem is they said I can only host one server in that space, regardless of whether my server is 1U, 2U or 3U. I get 1 IP address for a start and can purchase more for $0.30 per month per IP. This package comes with 65GB of transfer per month. Additional transfer ir $1.50 per GB per month.

Are there better deals out there?

Thanks.

I will doubt that there is a better package ... So this $85 includes 65GB and 3U of rack space? That's a good deal ... Now, ask them how they measure this bandwith ... are you gonna be billed by acutal data transfer, by average method or by 95th percentile?

Also ... hm... wait, this 65GB somehow sounds familiar ... is your server connectivity being capped at 192 kbps by any chance? If so, then though the price is cheap, I don't really like my connectivity be capped, especially at 192kbps (only 24 KB/s ... my cable modem is even better :) ) ... My server at Site5/NAC has recently been able to burst to 2.2MB/s (yes, burst 17.6 MBps)...

Anyway, ask them about these two:
1. will you server connectivity be capped at 192kbps (or some number similar to that)?
2. if not (meaning, your server is fully burstable to 8 mbps, which I really doubt), ask them how they will measuire bandwith.

Good luck ...
cheers,
:beer:

thanks. will find out.

Originally posted by MattF
Is it just me (in thinking)? or is their any host that actually has OC-12 internet bandwidth. I'm getting sick of hosts advertising the theortical capacity of their dark fibre rather than their actual bandwidth connections.

Some backbones do sell OC-12s. I doubt there are very many hosts that actually have them, though. An OC-12 from ATT is around $200k/mo. So you have to be doing some serious volume to pay for that.

Some have OC-12 fiber but instead of using one OC-12 on it they have multiple OC-3 lines from various providers flowing through it for redundancy. I hope that makes sense .

Originally posted by Jag
Some have OC-12 fiber but instead of using one OC-12 on it they have multiple OC-3 lines from various providers flowing through it for redundancy. I hope that makes sense .

And some have OC-12 fiber and only a DS3 running through it. ;)

Zenwoo, for your information. There's another ISP here in Malaysia, named Time. They don't limit your bandwidth usage if you co-locate a server there.

That's what I heard. Not sure if it's true.

http://www.time.net.my/services/server.cfm

Ok, it's true. I just found it. Time has a good reputation here. :)

By the way, NTT is a company from the japanese largest isp, DoCoMo.