Here is the basics of what I want:
-linux or NT
-400GB Bandwith/mo (Possibly more..)
-at least 10GB space
-PHP4
-Perl5/CGI
-MySQL
-Can't think of what else I needed....
How much would something like this run?
I can't afford $1K/month, or even close to that...

400GB ? ... that's the part that will make it expensive.

Does it has to be 400GB ? ..what are you gonna use it for ?

I'm look @ rackshack now.....300GB/mo should do.
It's just a popular site. I'll host about 30 of my sites, and on mine I have lots of my artwork (3DS and Photoshop work) so that uses a ton of bandwith.

If your actually going to use 300 gigs I would not suggest going with Rackshack

Well, I may only be around 250GB/mo, but $100/mo for that much bandwith is an incredible price.
I can't afford $500, or even $200/mo.

Dear Makeveli,

It will be very tough for you to find a deal for less than $200/month that
includes 250GB/month. The monthly fee would not cover the data transfer,
nor would it leave a share to cover the maintenance and monitoring of the
server itself.

You will, thus, need to either downgrade your requirements or upgrade
your budget.

You can always contact a host of your choice and see if they can make any
special arrangements for you, upon your provision of your requirements.

What about the Raq4 servers?
The only thing I see bad about it, is it's a 450MHZ Processor and only 256MB RAM...
Would this be too slow for a high traffic site?
and high traffic forums?

<<MOD EDIT:>>
Please do not ask people to check anything in your posts.
<</MOD EDIT:>>

Originally posted by Makeveli
What about the Raq4 servers?
The only thing I see bad about it, is it's a 450MHZ Processor and only 256MB RAM...
Would this be too slow for a high traffic site?
and high traffic forums?

Most forums are resource intensive on the cpu. I would not want to host a big one on a RAQ.

Most forums are resource intensive on the cpu. I would not want to host a big one on a RAQ

agree 100% - I'd like to see a RaQ doing 400GB or 250GB especially if its running an app :)

we like to keep our servers running under 150GB per month per server but thats shared hosting

shorty

How much bandwidth is too much for a server?


Say you are running a 1GHZ, 20Gig HD, 256RAM
(am i missing any essential specs?)

What is the key element to allowing major bandwidth transfer on a server? Is it RAM, Processor..etc?

Does it make a difference wether shared or dedicated?

Thanks
Trevor
:D

What is the key element to allowing major bandwidth transfer on a server? Is it RAM, Processor..etc

my 2 cents would be ram and apache set-up - processor for applications - dual's good it doesn't run any faster but can take the strain if theres lots of processes.

The difference between one site and shared hosting is you know exactly what the one site will be doing so you can work out your requirements - if its static html or downloads you can probably get huge bandwidth through the server you mentioned - if its running big apps or databases then it does restrict it - thats where the big sites look at clustering and load balancing etc etc

if it's shared hosting you have to try and balance whats on the server - you don't want 200 sites running big forums

shorty

why don't you take 2 racks and shared load between them in this way you can have them for $200 / month with 600 GB bandwdith.

racks aren't so bad as they seems. 450Mhz is pretty fast.

why don't you take 2 racks and shared load between them in this way you can have them for $200 / month with 600 GB bandwdith.

we had a raq4 (512mb) - with asp disabled - we had one site running a well known perl forum with relatively high hits and it brought the server down every night - the server had 100 sites and the whole server was only doing 40GB per month -

In comparison the same site is now on a dual 933 with 1GB of ram sharing with 400 other sites doing 150GB per month and we don't even notice his site

It's why I think the raq's are good for static html but not for application driven sites - suppose thats why they stuck chilisoft onit :D but again just my experience

shorty

Hum...
Well, I know I asked this in another thread-I just can't remember the thread.
Which site would load faster?
A: A T1 line, 1GHZ processor and 1 GB RAM
B: OC3 Connection, 450MHZ prcoessor, 256MB RAM

Hi Makeveli,

There is no way of telling. There are too many factors that need
to be counted into the answer.

You can either be on a T1 that is barely used, in which case your
website will come blazing fast to the average websurfer. On the
other hand, if the T1 is saturated, then it will seem like the web-
site is running on a Pentium 100 Mhz with 32 MB Ram (if not even
slower).

The same goes for an OC-3. If the network will be saturated,
you can get the same or worse response as on a T1. On the
other hand, if it is a non-oversubscribed OC-3, then you are fine
with a 450Mhz, 256 MB Ram server (which, by the way, also
depends on what you are going to run on the server, to see if
a 1GHz would make much of a difference) compared to a 1Ghz.

Assuming you are on a non-oversubscribed connection, then
as far as hardware goes, the more the better. However, in most
cases you may just be overpaying for resources you will never
use anyway (hardware wise). Serving static HTML pages will not
require for you to have a 1Ghz, nor serving static media (images,
precompressed video, etc...).

If you intend to have many CGI scripts or other CPU intensive
software running on the server (especially database interactive
software such as a modern discussion board), then the higher
of a CPU you have, the better. On this topic, however, there are
yet other factors that will come into play to get the best
performance out of the hardware, for your content delivery.

To answer your question in short: it depends.