Well after testing out the VDI operation and trying to compare it with DI, this is what I see.
"*" marks the winner :)

*DI- Fast servers, great prices
VDI- Not quite as fast for the buck but very close

DI- Good support, fast, knowledable, but only 30days free
*VDI- same as above but no 30 day limit. . woohoo

DI- Upgrades have a setup and a monthly
*VDI- Upgrades are a onetime fee, and not very exspensive

DI- Comes stock with low grade pre-packaged programs
*VDI- Comes with SSH, MySQL, proftp and more

DI- Control panel is very basic, the end user panel is even more basic, and a lot of actions in the panel causes httpsd to stop and you must telnet in to restart it again.
*VDI- No such problem yet, but I havent had the time frame ive had at DI either

DI- Uses 95% for bandwidth resultng in $870 + a mo. for my typical traffic patterns
*VDI- Uses actual transfers although their price per gig is higher the same transfer rate will costs me about $360 mo. Thats a $500+ savings per server

*DI- has a good track record for connectivity
VDI- had some problems that appear to have been overcome

DI- 6mo. contract , and 30 day try out
*VDI- no contract ever, quit when you want

DI- only one way to get connected
*VDI- you can lease a 8mb pipe or whatever you need of your own

Well thats the main points ive seen and in this comparison VDI wins to say the least. I'll have to repost after ive had more time at VDI. Their initial impression is far greater than the initial impression i had with DI but theres a different story for each user. This is in no way intened to influence anybidy to go with either company. Its up to you to make your own decisions, my experiences may not be the same as your own.

I read these boards many times a day...and seldom post....

However, the way everyone rattles on about DI is very strange...

I've used their control panel myself, and it really sucks big time.
If you are going to pick DI, I would recommend to go with servint.com instead, the best support I have ever experienced (when we used to colo there).

To back up what Jaguar just said, VDI's WebHostmanager and cpanel is better than anything else out there....

If you want evidence of that...ask me or my collegues for a demo, or ring VDI direct!

Regards,
Jordan
Ultraspeed UK

I'll have to back up Jordan on this one. Not only is it a good control panel, but it is FULLY customizable. You can make it look like anything you want (though it does take a while with over 150 HTML files).

Also the downtime that I've heard about with BurstNET must be thier servers (down daily or multiple times per week). We have had two servers with Ultraspeed (located at VDI) and neither has gone down or had any problems in the 3 weeks they have been their. I know the rebut question is, "but three weeks isn't that long". Take a look at my BurstNET log file (in these forums somewhere) and you'll see why 3 weeks is long enough to know.

Originally posted by jaguar
DI- Upgrades have a setup and a monthly
*VDI- Upgrades are a onetime fee, and not very exspensive


Incorrect. Did you get them reversed or just make a mistake? When you add something at DI, like more memory for instance, you do not pay a monthly fee for it.

With respect Duster, you don't pay a monthly fee on memory with most good providers. (Including ourselves)

Regards,

Jordan

Originally posted by Duster
Originally posted by jaguar
DI- Upgrades have a setup and a monthly
*VDI- Upgrades are a onetime fee, and not very exspensive


Incorrect. Did you get them reversed or just make a mistake? When you add something at DI, like more memory for instance, you do not pay a monthly fee for it.

Duster, I have had several upgrades done and you DO get charged a setup and a monthly fee. Look at their upgrade services page and see for yourself. I have had so many upgrades done I could qoute you the price of all their upgrades off the top of my head. Here I'll make it easy for you

http://dialtoneinternet.com/services/hardupgrade.htm

Duster,
I had a memory upgrade done on one of the servers I lease from Dialtone, and was charged the upgrade fee plus an additional $11 per month.



[Edited by Curious on 09-13-2000 at 06:48 PM]

I would think all hosting companies would charge more for upgrades, such as memory, even every month after a set up fee.


If they didn't, what would stop you from upgrading the ram and disk space to the same specs as one of their better dedicated servers that costs more, without paying for it.


If Duster was right, I could lease the 4001 plan for $289/month, and upgrade the memory to 512 ram and 18 Gig SCSI, and be close to the same server as the 4003 plan that costs $525/month.....and that just doesn't make sense Duster.

Jaguar....Nice comparisons! Looks like VDI would be the choice. Im quite happy where I am at the moment with Alabanza but figured I would give my opinion. I looked at Dialtone for quite some time, as well as other companies before actually going with Alabanza. About a year ago a friend of mine got into one of those contracts with DI, with limited system (I dont remember which one) It was pretty expensive though, and for 2 or 3 years. Within 30 days, she had numerous problems with NO accounts even on the server. Believe me she got charged for stuff, bandwidth being one, and constantly a hacker getting in. Last I heard she had to purchase a firewall? :smash:
Ive seen Jaguar's posts all along, and some others too, but that bandwidth percentile figure that they use..well I find it UNreal!! :eek:
Common sense :emlaugh: tells me too that DI would most certainly charge for upgrades!

Greg, The reason my company and many others charge only setup/install fee's only is because of the following.

A) Setup/Install fee = cost of part
B) It doesn't cost me any more a month for a 1ghz 512mb ram server in a rack vs a 400mhz 64mb celeron in a rack.


Of course it could be the little part of my brain which tells me this:

"Ok they are upgrading their server, that means their going to be using more resources which means more bandwidth usage which means their monthly goes up and I make more of a profit."

Charging a monthly fee for more ram and hard drives and the like is just plain stupid.

Look, I realize that it costs you nothing at all after you install it, so why would you keep charging your clients for it?


Because if you lease more than 1 type of server, like DI does, you can't do it that way. If they did, everyone would lease the lowest server for $289/month, then upgrade it to the best server $789/month...and only pay DI the set up fee then $289/month, for the same plan that they charge $789/month for.


Email DI and ask them why they do it, chances are they will explain it just like they explained to Duster about sendmail and FTP, they will give you all the logic behind it.

I must say, that *that* is one of the reasons I decided to buy my server, instead of lease one. Now I understand we all have to make money, really I do, but the thought of pyaing a setup fee (which covers the cost or close), plus monthly charges just didn't sit well with me. Again, I understand why they do it, but I don't like it and chose another route.

If VDI had been a bit better when I bought my server, I may have tried USusa and Daniel out. Maybe next time.

I stand corrected (or actually, I sit that way). They've changed, and I should have checked first. A few months ago, adding 64 mb of RAM was a one time fee of $177, including the setup. I don't like the idea of paying for something monthly that is a durable product. Memory doesn't go bad unless you shoot electricity through it.

I certainly don't see any justification for charging a higher setup for different memory sizes, or for different hard drive sizes. It takes the same amount of time to put in a 64 mb stick as it does a 128 or 256 mb one. I can understand a reasonable monthly fee, since they are responsible for it and will change it if anything happens, but that makes more sense with hard drives than with memory.

Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Greg, I understand what your saying.

However, I don't personally agree with DI's pricing plans (sure the lower ones are great, but they are really taking a good bit of money. Something like their server 4004 costs roughly 3500 to build (thats a rough estimate i can contact my hardware provider for exacts).

Now, with their 6 month contract they are making around 4734.00 . They just paid for the server and made 1200 which easily covers monthly bandwidth charges and then some.

After that , they are making near 700 a month profit.
Pretty darn good deal for them don't ya think?

Anyhow, I don't want to get into some big argument over their prices, if you'd like to do that feel free to contact me privately or start another thread.

{Edit} Rephrased a word or two {/Edit}


[Edited by DanielP on 09-13-2000 at 10:49 PM]

Originally posted by DanielP Now, with their 6 month contract they are making around 4734.00 . They just paid for the server and made 1200 which easily covers monthly bandwidth charges and then some.

After that , they are making near 700 a month profit.
Pretty darn good deal for them don't ya think?Yeah, what's with those guys, expecting to make enough money to pay their staff, the rent or mortgage on their building, the utility and phone bills... heck, they probably even expect to make a profit. What kind of way is that to run a business?

It's not uncommon in many businesses for the way a product or service is priced for resale to have little connection to how the wholesaler pays for it. If you have call waiting from your local phone company, you pay them every month for it and you paid a setup fee to turn it on. What did it take to turn it on? Somebody typed a few keystrokes. There's no significant monthly expense for the phone company to continue to provide it to you, and they've already recovered the development and infrastructure costs of providing it, years ago -- but they still charge you every month. So are they ripping you off?

I apologize, I rephrased my above post. Maybe their not ripping you off, however, they are taking a LARGE amount of un-necessary money.


I understand profit, I make a profit on all of my accounts and still have plenty of budget to do what needs to be done.

You just compared a old beat up car to a nice new porsche in your msg.

The point is that the monthly is not worth more than about 350ish if that much.

Lets do a little price comparison shall we?

Bandwidth
$1.50 per gb (bit high for someone such as DI)
97.50 in bandwidth
So that leaves 691.50 a month IF someone manages to use 65gb of bandwidth without bursting too high to incur 95% charges.

Lets say $50 for power usage and the likes each month
.
Now, we are down to 641.50 profit, lets say each "average" server owner uses a total of 4 hours of support each month.

Lets say that the person who handles most of your support is a regular $20 an hour tech.

So another $80.00 out of your payment goes to the tech.

Just to be fair lets take $100 out of this server ALONE for payment towards their bills, phone, lights , rent etc.


Thats 461.50 with no home except the bank account EVERY month past the 6th month. So if your with them another six months, they get $2,769.00 pure profit from you on package 4004 after all costs you create from your server are paid!.

Or if you stay with them for another year after the first 6 month contract and manage somehow to use 65gb bandwidth and stay UNDER their 95% charges they'd make $5,538.00 a year off of you alone.

I think they have their bills nice and covered don't you?

Yeah, and some places charge $3/mo per IP address. It is just in their pricing structure. I don't personally like it, but that is why I didn't go with them after looking at them quite seriously. I was also looking at VDI, but at the time their service was lousy.

What is the point? I am not sure due to being ill and should have gone to bed an hour ago.

Well, you can't get the base server and upgrade it to the others. For one thing, the base server uses a 650 Mhz cpu while the 4002 plan and up use an 800 Mhz cpu, with the 4004 using duals and the 4005 using dual 900s.

An apt comparison is the 4002 and 4003. Their differences are in memory amount (256/512), hard drive size (9 gb /18 gb) and price ($400/$525). Aside from the set up fees of $310 dollars ($105 for the RAM, $205 for the hard drive), the monthly amount works out a bit less upgrading the 4002 to 4003. $497 ($400 + 49 + 48) as opposed to $525. Over the course of a year, the upgrade is $26 more expensive than if you got the 4003 initially. You'd save $336 a year in the second year, but by then you might want to upgrade to a more powerful server,

The way I look at it is....the better the server you lease, the more it costs monthly, period.


I realize your paying to upgrade it, but you are still leasing a better server from them after the upgrade, and that's how the price structure works at most hosts, right?


Like Duster, I do think it's ridiculous that the more memory you want installed, the more the installation fee is...all memory installations should have the same set up fee, for ram and for hard drives.


Like Chicken, I think that if you don't like the price structure, that's all the more reason to colo with a good NOC.


As for making a ton of money...for some funny reason I always feel safer with a host that is making a fair bit of profit rather than a host that might be cutting corners. I always figure if a host is making good money, they can afford to upgrade and expand quickly by adding new staff and servers and training, and will probably never be "bought" or "merged" with someone else. I am not being sarcastic or anything, that is really how I feel.


Daniel, I am not arguing, I am discussing...and I really think they have good points for their price structure, and you have good points for yours...and I hope all do well.

Also , lets take into the account this.

ANYONE Needing a Dual 800mhz server is going to be pushing a LOT of bandwidth.

So ONTOP of the extra $ their making that I quoted above, they are making a ton of money off of their 95% rule...

I've noticed somewhat of a trend, where DI appears to charge for about 3x the real usage on their 95% thing, dunno if its just because it appeared that way in the few cases i've seen on the boards or what not. But thats the way it looked.

So consider that profit ONTOP of a ton of bandwidth usage and 95% bandwidth charges.....

"As for making a ton of money...for some funny reason I always feel safer with a host that is making a fair bit of profit rather than a host that might be cutting corners. "


Yes, however, I sell my servers at a lower monthly cost than almost anyone out there, excluding setup of course, and I still turn a 40% profit once the server is paid for.

I can't "afford" not to keep prices down if I still want to see any customers come in the door. Personally, I don't like it, or think it fair to the customers, when a large company charges 3, 4, 5 times more than the smaller ones because they "have a brand name" same way with dell, IBM and compaq servers now a days.

I think some of us have more overhead than others too though. I think you do not understand everything companies have to pay for.


Do you have a Canadian merchant account and a U.S. merchant account to please most of your clients? (no currency exchange)

Do you have an International Toll Free line?

Are you Incorporated? (that costs money too)

Do you have a business checking account?

Do you advertise in local papers?

Do you run affiliate programs?

Do you have multiple phone lines at home, and multiple internet connections (@home & AT&T) to make sure you can always get online?


So, you can see my monthly bills are probably higher than yours, so I would need to charge more than someone that doesn't have these as overhead. But as history shows, the more you put into it, the more you can charge. Just like AOL, they are crap right? They charge too much right? But look where advertising got them, they are ranked #1.

Originally posted by DanielP
Also , lets take into the account this.

ANYONE Needing a Dual 800mhz server is going to be pushing a LOT of bandwidth.

So ONTOP of the extra $ their making that I quoted above, they are making a ton of money off of their 95% rule...

I've noticed somewhat of a trend, where DI appears to charge for about 3x the real usage on their 95% thing, dunno if its just because it appeared that way in the few cases i've seen on the boards or what not. But that's the way it looked.

So consider that profit ONTOP of a ton of bandwidth usage and 95% bandwidth charges.....




I really wish some of you would learn the truth about the 95%ile system instead of spouting rubbish like this as if it were true. I'm not picking on you Daniel, it's just that much of this post of yours is just flat out wrong.

If you read the discussion about this at http://www.scriptkeeper.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/001151.html you might gain an understanding of it. There is an actual graph of bandwidth from a DI server and it's easy to see how it works.

The 95%ile method does not triple bandwidth costs, nor does it necessarily increase charges regardless of one's level of bandwidth. It deals with sustained spikes in usage.

Please learn how it works before you make any more such statements. If you have any questions afterwards, I'd be glad to help you understand, if I'm able.

Originally posted by DanielP
Lets say that the person who handles most of your support is a regular $20 an hour tech.

So another $80.00 out of your payment goes to the tech.
OK. How much goes to answering pre-sales queries? How much goes to management? How much goes to administration? How much goes to the accountant?

Sorry, I think it's totally silly to try to take any one item among all the things that any company sells and think that you can assign a piece of each expense to it, whether that be tech support or bandwidth. Do you run your business that way? I don't.

Maybe the income they get off of some subset of their packages for outweighs the expense. Probably some other subset of their packages is a "loss leader."

Certainly, obviously, some people don't like the DI pricing plan. Obviously, too, many do.

That said, the fact is that I don't have a server at DI. I looked at them, was impressed by their reputation for reliability, speed, and support but decided that I could get a better value for the kind of configuration I needed, elsewhere. That's all that matters, how much the server would cost me. How much profit they'd make if I got it wasn't relevant to my decision, and I don't expect it to be relevant to my clients how much profit I might make from them.
Personally, I don't like it, or think it fair to the customers, when a large company charges 3, 4, 5 times more than the smaller ones because they "have a brand name" same way with dell, IBM and compaq servers now a days. Not fair to the customers (who should only care whether they are getting what they think is a good value for their money -- which is why even some knowledgeable and experienced people pay more for a Dell, IBM or Compaq; they feel those are worth the extra cost), or not fair to you as a lesser-known competitor?

I'll only add that the higher setup fees for ram are due to the immense effort it takes to lift 128MB over 64MB and install it into the machine. Have you felt the difference in weight? And with 512MB...

Seriously, this gets me. I think we are all in agreement on this one. The higher setup fee is obviously just to cover the cost of the more expensive ram, but you'd think higher monthly fees would offset this enough.

Greg, Are you trying to get personal now?

For your information
I have 3 lines
two internet accounts
1 merchant
1 biz account

no i'm not incorporated as I do not at this time need to seperate myself from the business. That is set for a bit later date.

I have no need to advertise as I do not care if I grow fast or slow, all that matters to me is the quality of service I provide.

I am considering affiliate programs, but why should that matter?

I obviously , unlike you, have a bit more overhead as I have something we call "rent" so there goes another $400 of my cash, but do you see me complaining.

Watch your self, because you just got personal and offended me by enciting that I do not understand bills and that my company does not have just as much over head as the next.

Duster: I apologize if I mis-represented it, as you are correct, there are many misrepresentations of it but yet it is hard in its self to clearly understand.

Please tell me if this would be a fair analogy.

Say normal traffic is 100k/s, you get a 500k/sec burst for oh just to throw a number out there, 3 hours each day, you are charged for 95% of that 3 hour spike as their 95% average are you not?


JayC: we could break it apart time after time, but in my eyes and many others it seems way to expensive, espically because I deal in servers every day. You may see it differently and I respect that, however, thats just the way , in my eyes, I see it.

Originally posted by Chicken
Seriously, this gets me. I think we are all in agreement on this one. The higher setup fee is obviously just to cover the cost of the more expensive ram, but you'd think higher monthly fees would offset this enough. Agreed! :)

Personally, I think one or the other -- either a slightly higher setup fee to cover the extra ram, or a very slightly higher montly cost -- might make sense, but to do both does mean spending an awful lot of money on a pretty inexpensive commodity.

Hi Duster,

you're right about DI not charging montly fees on hardware, but they have changed that in the past month or so. When I (and you the week earlier) signed up with DI they were not charging any monthly fees on hardware. I know this since I upgraded the Ram when I ordered the server. The install fee was hefty ($177 for 64mb), but there was no montly fee. Now the install fee is half that but with a small montly fee.

No, I wans't getting personal, I was pointing out that some companies spend more than others to get noticed. If you don't advertise, you couldn't possibly spend as much then, that's the most expensive part, is advertising!

Phone a few papers, and a few internet advertisers, see what you'd pay, it's a hell of alot.


About the 95% thing, obviously, if it was a scam, you'd hear 100's of people complaining, since we only see the occasional complaint about it, it is good for the great percentage of their clients, and the few that have monthly spikes don't like it.

I understand advertising is a lot, but i've been in the industry near 4 years and I've not found the need to advertise any company I've owned or worked at and they , after a while, have seen the growth increase by dramatic rates.

Daniel, I don't think Greg is trying to make it personal, but you have to understand that Dialtone's costs are far greater than yours as they own and operate the NOC. You colo servers at one. This is not the same thing and you really can't compare the two. One of the benefits of colo'ing is that you SAVE countless dollars. Think of how much your expenses would be if you tried to setup what VDI or dialtone have going. Whooooooo.

After I wrote that last bit, I couldn't remember whether you built the servers yourself and colo'd at VDI, or of you leased servers they offer. This might make it a bit easier to compare and to discuss. Since I can't remember, some of this may not make sense or be valid but, either way, VDI seems to have a good deal, and obviously it works for you. Just not sure now what that deal is, heh, so I'll shaddup. :)

edit
I can't believe that 3 posts squeaked inbetween the one I was replying to.
/edit

[Edited by Chicken on 09-14-2000 at 12:21 AM]

Chicken, true, it is more to setup and run a NOC, however, I can go straight and compare VDI's costs and prices to DI and blow them out of the water soto speak....


But the points have been made and we see where both sides stand thats all that matters I suppose, we both expressed our views.

Originally posted by DanielP
Say normal traffic is 100k/s, you get a 500k/sec burst for oh just to throw a number out there, 3 hours each day, you are charged for 95% of that 3 hour spike as their 95% average are you not?
The problem is that people compare what their 95th percentile bandwidth measure is to what their transfer total is as if they are the same thing, and they are absolutely not. So somebody hits a spike that places their 95th percentile at, say, 90 gigs. Then they see that their total transfer that month is, say, 30 gigs. So they think they've been charged for three times what they used.

But in fact, they've been charged nothing for transfers. Those 30 gigs were "free!" (Just kidding. They were actually "unmetered.") They paid only for peak bandwidth usage.

So the problem as I see it is that too many people who should know better use the terms "bandwidth" and "transfers" interchangeably.

Originally posted by DanielP
Chicken, true, it is more to setup and run a NOC, however, I can go straight and compare VDI's costs and prices to DI and blow them out of the water soto speak....

Yep, from what you've told me and from what I've read that is true. I suppose this affects your ability to provide lower pricing, but it is still a bit hard to compare YOU and what you can offer to what dialtone offers.

You have the advantage of having a good supplier and no NOC costs. That combination makes you very competitive, even if you charge setup fees for the servers and diatone doesn't (specials sometimes at least, not sure what they are currently charging).

Also, you have more servers than the person looking to start out and get one, so theoretically, it makes sense that you might be able to beat the price of both VDI *and* dialtone for a person who wants one server. We've talked about this before. Just posting for the board.

As a side note, I'd recommend that if you are looking to get quotes for a server from VDI and dialtone, that you might want to pass the specs by Daniel to see what he could do. I think you'd save a bit due to the reasons discussed above.

Ummm JayC.

Bandwidth and transfer can easily be compared if you want to do the math.

Take a look @ this image.

http://www.ultraspeedusa.com/slot14-28-day.gif

And tell me what DI Would charge for that usage?

Its peek is 3.54 MBPS or 3568.6 kB/s

Now my average and what I charge for is 1671.8 kB/s or 1.63 MBPS (thats a daily average rather than a monthly or weekly but it can be viewed as the same, just repete it for the next day)

So now that we have a simplified example, what would DI base their charge on?

Originally posted by DanielP

So now that we have a simplified example, what would DI base their charge on?

95% of the peak, converted to a monthly value. So the number on which they base their charge will be higher than the number on which you base yours, and higher than the number on which a host charging by transfer total would base theirs.

But the point is that those three different numbers are measures of three different things. It's confusing because in the end they use the same unit of measure, gigabytes per month. Same unit, but it's being applied to a different product.

And no doubt if you take Dialtone's prices and yours and run them against that chart (which I'm not going to bother to do; I'm calling it a night) their charge for that usage will be higher. And no doubt it's no accident that you chose a chart with one huge spike! :)

My point is not that the 95th percentile system is better, it's not that it's more fair or that it's unfair. My point is simply that the comparison isn't as black and white and people often express it to be. My point is just what I said before: 90 gigs under the 95th percentile rule is not three times as much as 30 gigs of transfers. They are two different things.

Originally posted by Duster

I really wish some of you would learn the truth about the 95%ile system instead of spouting rubbish like this as if it were true. I'm not picking on you Daniel, it's just that much of this post of yours is just flat out wrong.

If you read the discussion about this at http://www.scriptkeeper.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/001151.html you might gain an understanding of it. There is an actual graph of bandwidth from a DI server and it's easy to see how it works.

The 95%ile method does not triple bandwidth costs, nor does it necessarily increase charges regardless of one's level of bandwidth. It deals with sustained spikes in usage.

Please learn how it works before you make any more such statements. If you have any questions afterwards, I'd be glad to help you understand, if I'm able. [/B]

Duster, I think he meant actual usage vs. the pattern of the usage, as you all know in my case the two are about 3x difference. The 95% say i use roughyy 355gig mo. and in actual usage I use about 110-130mo. , quite a difference but its becuase of the pattern I use bandwidth in.

Wow, what a theread I got started here :)

Originally posted by jaguar
[QUOTE]The 95% say i use roughyy 355gig mo. and in actual usage I use about 110-130mo.
OK, one more before I really am done for the night! I think it'd be more accurate to say the the 95th percentile approach says that you would use 355 gigs a month if you stayed at 95% of your peak -- not that you did or do use that much.

But what I really think would go a long way to simplifying the 95th percentile debate would be if those providers who use it wouldn't go through the step of converting it to a monthly rate. That only introduces confusion, because your peak has nothing to do with monthly usage.

I know I've seen some that don't do that conversion, but if Dialtone and the rest would just call a peak a peak the world would be a simpler -- and quieter -- place.

SORRY I find it appalling that Duster has stated 'so many views' on these posts about DI...not necessarily posts but views?? he has mentioned it...in regards to HIS DI topic???Serious business?? hummm--WELL--lets see the Women In Business thread started by Dana...last I looked had 631 views with only 44 replies...and ole Duster put in quite alot there!!
:p: I also find it quite repulsive to tell someone to start their own thread about another company because this was just SO serious...and for DI only??
#1. Lets see how you react Duster if your bandwidth allottment skyrockets off the scale and see how you react??!!
#2. If you are so GUNG-HO on dialtone because of such thorough research you done beforehand---why not dedicate a complete website to it for info for all the internet community for DIALTONE..:idea:
#3.Since you like to technically break down and analyze everything said---GUNG-HO--simple defined means, according to the Random House Dictionary:"whole-heartedly loyal and enthusiastic"....which you seem to be to DI---hence the remark, stating have a complete website in dedication and discussion of them!! I am sure it would be succesful.

Hi Daniel,

from the chart you gave it would be hard to calculate what your bandwidth charge would be at DI because it only represents one day, and since you did not sustain the peak for more than 36 hours, then it would be disregarded. You see, the 95th percentile is based on disregarding the top %5 (or 36 hours of peak usage) and charging you for the highest peak transfer after that. So, in your graph the large peak would be ignored.

Now, if you had sustained peaks like that for more than 36 hours in a month, then yes, you would be billed for that amount for the month.

Now, everyone start getting along before I get upset. :)

Tabernack, what about this one, ignoring the flat spot where the mgtr somehow died for a few days :)

http://www.ultraspeedusa.com/slot10-5-month.gif


I'm just trying to understand how it works since duster pointed out I obviously don't :)

Hi Daniel,

I can't really calculate what the 95th percentile would be by looking at a graph. So I'll try to explain it better.

To calculate the 95th percentile you take the graph you posted above, and draw a line below the top 5 percent peaks, and you are then billed for that amount. So, if you have several peaks during the months of say 3600kbps and those peaks never last an accumulated 36 hours (36 hours is approximately %5 of the month) for the month, then you will not be charged for that amount. So take a pencil, draw a line across your graph just below the top 5% peaks and that is what you will be billed. To draw this line you will need more information than just the graph. You will need the interval measurements throughout the month to determine your top %5 intervals.

SO, instead of trying to calculate the 95th percentile using a graph, think of it this way:

Let's say DI measures the transfer speed from your server ever 10 minutes. That's 6 times per hour, 144 times a day, and 4320 times a month (assuming a 30 day month).

Now, sort these measurments from lowest to highest (disregard when in month they were taken). Delete the highest 216 (which is %5 of 4320) measurements and the resulting highest measurement is what you will be billed for. So, technically the 4104th measurement (when ordered from lowest to highest) is what you will be charged for.

I hope this makes it easier to understand, or did I just confuse everyone again? :)

[Edited by tabernack on 09-14-2000 at 01:29 PM]

Actually that does explain it better.

Still makes the charges quite outrageous for people with spikes.

Tnx for the explination.

I agree. People who have high peaks for more than 36 hours in a month will most definitely not benefit from this kind of system (in terms of bandwidth charges) but they will benefit in the fact that their server will not be limited by a fixed pipe and their customers/clients' websites will not be slowed down due to these high peaks.

But the one thing that confuses me, is that, is this just something DI does?

I've not seen any other companies use that type of way to charge. The rest I've seen either say you get X type of pipe or X amount of burstable bandwidth.

{Edit}Fixed Spelling Errors whoops! {/Edit}

[Edited by DanielP on 09-14-2000 at 01:55 PM]

Originally posted by jaguar
The 95% say i use roughyy 355gig mo. and in actual usage I use about 110-130mo.
I don't know if this will help clarify, but I've been trying to think of an analogy and just hit upon this while driving to the office: say I was pulled over on the parkway this morning, and ticketed for going 70 mph. My fine would be based on my having been going at that rate. But there was no hour in which I went 70 miles, the fact was that I was clocked going some number of feet in a fraction of a second. Then a conversion is done to turn that into an hourly rate.

So the state police would say I did 70 mph, but actually during the hour in question I travelled only 21 miles. My highest measured rate, measured over a fraction of a second and then converted to an hourly rate, is 70 mph. Your highest measured rate, measured over a period of hours and then converted to a monthly rate, was 355 gigs/month.

Of course I've simplified the analogy by leaving out the dropping of the highest 5%. But I was probably really doing 75, the cop wrote the ticket for 70: 93rd percentile ticketing!

Well, it helps me to understand it anyway...


[Edited by JayC on 09-14-2000 at 02:22 PM]

Well, it helps me to understand it anyway...


Ive been reading this debate but have been staying out of it :-)

I just wanted to say 'kudos' to your excellent anaolgy using Miles Per Hour!!!

- Robert Angle

Jay,

That's a pretty good analogy and holds up well with the various parts of the issue. You didn't go 70 mph for a whole hour, but your sustained peak was 70 and that's what you would have to pay for, even if your average speed was, say 40 mph.


[Edited by Duster on 09-15-2000 at 01:32 AM]

I want to take the anology a bit further to illustrate the problem from the comsumers' point of view.

Applying the anology to a taxi situation. From Place A to Place B was 50 miles. The driver drove fast at certain points in time so the 95th percentile peak was 150 miles per hour. When arriving at Place B, the taxi driver charged 150 miles for this trip although the actual distance travelled was 50 miles, saying that this was the 95 percentile charging system.

The passenger of course got angry because this was not the normal way he got charged for taking a taxi.

And the taxi driver said:"I offer you a speed control service so that speed will be capped at 50 miles per hour. I charge $65.00 for set-up and another $65.00 per trip." LOL

BTW, can we compile a list of bandwidth charging methods of some of the dedicated servers providers so that readers know how they will be charged if they go to these providers.



[Edited by Chestnut on 09-14-2000 at 10:53 PM]

Originally posted by Chestnut

The passenger of course got angry because this was not the normal way he got charged for taking a taxi.Good point. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with or unfair about the 95th percentile approach in and of itself. But because there's little understanding of it, and it's not used that commonly, it can come out of nowhere and surprise somebody.

If you understand how it works, you know that it's why Dialtone, for example, offers (now) a 65 gig monthly limit and "only" charges $3 a gig after that: the gigabyte they are charging $3 for isn't the same product you might pay $10 or $8 or $6 for somewhere else. And you will understand that depending on your usage it might work out well for you, while with a different usage pattern it might not.

I can certainly understand somebody feeling that it's unfair if they've been bitten by it without having understood it going in. I really don't think Dialtone does a good job of explaining it (at least judging by the information you can get on their site before buying a server; I'm not a Dialtone customer so I can't say how good a job their customer-only faq does. But the point is you don't see that until you sign a contract), and I see a lot of sites around the net that have explanations or definitions of the term "bandwidth" that would leave you to believe that "bandwidth" and "data transfer" are always synonymous. So hopefully if we can create a ripple of understanding about this issue starting here, there'll be fewer people getting into that cab without knowing exactly what it is that they are going to be paying for.

I don't want to come off as a simpleton, but just to describe in layman's terms, is this correct? Here is what is commonly offered:

Capped Line: You get a pipe that is only sooo big, and thus a large peak would mean slowdown or inaccessability of the server. Payment is a flat fee based on the size of the dedicated line you get.

95%: Instead of getting a large high capacity line that would be able to handle the peaks, you share a really big line, your bandwidth measurements are taken at various intervals and you are charged via the 95%ile method (I understand how this works). You save over getting a large dedicated line, in two ways. One, that you don't have to get a pipe that can handle those extra 5% peaks. Two, that your traffic may vary, and getting a large dedicated line might be a waste or not large enough next month.

Average: Basically the same as above in terms of how it works, but instead of being charged via the 95%ile method, your bandwidth measurements are taken at various intervals and then those figures are averaged together which gets you a certain number. You're plan includes a certain amount, and you are charged $XXX per GB if you excede that amount (or possibly you can move up to a higher level plan of some sort).

Is this correct, and if so, did I miss an option?

[Edited by Chicken on 09-15-2000 at 04:14 AM]

Hi Chicken,

That about describes the three basic ways in regards to bandwidth.

Their could be others but I'm not sure of them.