upon checking those providers with good reputation, I found servercentral's bandwidth is most expensive, $300 for 1Mbps(about 300G), others like Dinix, Theplanet, Gnax etc, offer 1000G or up at same rate coming with similar dedicated server hardwares, I compared almost everyone, the speed difference among them is not big like their rate difference. how come the servercentral's bandwidth is so expensive? anyone has real experiences with them? Thanks.

Maybe its premium bandwidth with 100% uptime and not oversold.

because unlike the "budget providers" they do not oversell and have a great network.

you can get cheap dedicateds however, if you have more than a baby order of a p4 2.4 or something of the like.

then, you imply others oversell their bandwidth? ;)

not everyone, but the others you listed.. yes.

"Duh"

:)

Everyone knows servermatrix and ev1servers oversell but the fact is we don't care because they continue to provide.

Originally posted by pixel_fenix
Everyone knows servermatrix and ev1servers oversell but the fact is we don't care because they continue to provide.

hahaa Well that is the point. If you are happy and it doesn't bother you then great. Alot of companies oversell it is not really a bad thing unless you oversell ALOT> ;)

not everyone, but the others you listed.. yes.

"Duh"


I believe SM & EV1, overselling their bandwidth is a matter of business strategy. Afterall, it does not affect its users, am I right to say so?

As for uptime, both SM, EV1 & GNAX can easily achieve 100%.

Thanks.

$300 is their listed price only. They have a special 1U, 1mbps for $149. The special is permanent.

Contact their sales departments. They often can give better deals through email. They are worth every dime you spend though.

They seem to be the only serious contender in Chicago/Midwest area, and they do have a decent network.

I have to gripe though that they used to use internap for incoming traffic. Now, they use a mix of a few other Tier2 ISPs (as evidenced by my traceroutes). I would rather have internap back, but the decision is of course not mine. Heh.

I've had servers on EV1, The Planet, and GNAX. They may oversell in that they sell more than they can offer, but it works out for them. All three provide MRTG graphis, based on the graphs neither of these providers are anywhere near their network limits. EV1 does rely on some cheaper bandwidth but The Planet and GNAX have some high quality providers.

ServerCentral is good, but they change their routes a lot. They add and drop providers a lot too. When routes change, or when they decide to start routing through the cheaper providers they have, the pings go up. Some may not notice, but those who rely on latency would not be pleased or impressed.

i have serveral servers at servercentral, so i am speaking from experience. they are solid, they are strong, they are always up, they don't oversell, but i just hate how sometimes they take so long to reply to emails, and how they change their routes and then i have users emailing me saying their ping went up 20,30, even 40ms sometimes..

i'm sorry for going offtopic. i know this thread is about bandwidth prices.. i get a sufficient amount of bandwidth per server to not have to really worry about bw prices.

but yeah, sc is good, just the routes change often and pings can go up. other than that the network itself is pretty solid.

i'd say they just need a few more employees (that or just respond faster), and they need to stop changing routes so much IMO.

It's about quantity. You can get better pricing if you purchase more than 1 mbps, but $300 for /only/ 1 mbps of bandwidth is pretty reasonable.

Yes I wish SC would just leave well enough alone on their network. I multihome via BGP to them and BTN, and I constantly have to tweak things due to their unannounced routing changes...

Aside from that the network is reliable and usually fairly decent in terms of speed. To be honest though, its really not the bargain it used to be since they dropped internap for incoming traffic.

Originally posted by innova
Aside from that the network is reliable and usually fairly decent in terms of speed. To be honest though, its really not the bargain it used to be since they dropped internap for incoming traffic.

InterNAP is a name, do you happen to know the strength and weaknesses of InterNAP's network in Chicago?

Firstly, they only used them for incoming, so the monetary benefits of dropping them was next to nil, so you can rule that out.

Secondly, InterNAP is composed of small pipes in chicago, DS3s, OC3s the like.....they are not nearly what everyone makes them out to be, and yes, I used their network. ServerCentral dropped InterNAP and picked up multiple gigEs to Level3 and UUnet, already having gigEs to GBLX, Verio, and AboveNET, there's 5 of InterNAP's 7 pipes. Add Peer1 and Teleglobe as the apparent "tier2 providers" that you are claiming (note: Teleglobe is settlement/transit-free, mark them up as a Tier1, at least according to teleglobe sales)

I'm failing to see where their network quality diminished any due to dropping InterNAP? They just took out a middleman. The majority of their traffic went through two providers, so instead of having to go thrugh InterNAP's routers, they dropped internap and went and bought gigEs to those two providers.

Please...I've used thier network for years (3-4?) and their network has been nothing but on a uphill climb as far as quality goes.

Firstly, they only used them for incoming, so the monetary benefits of dropping them was next to nil, so you can rule that out.

That wasnt my point. Monetary aside, the performance has indeed declined.

Secondly, InterNAP is composed of small pipes in chicago, DS3s, OC3s the like.....they are not nearly what everyone makes them out to be, and yes, I used their network

Does Internap use different carriers at different locations? I was not aware of this. Let me remind you, although unnecessary, that the size of the pipe and the latency of the pipe are not equivalent albeit related. May you please link me to where I can read about this?

I'm failing to see where their network quality diminished any due to dropping InterNAP

All I know is what my users tell me and what their traceroutes say. I am being totally objective on this matter.

Please...I've used thier network for years (3-4?) and their network has been nothing but on a uphill climb as far as quality goes.

I didnt say they suck or anything. No need to get combative. I am simply reporting what I have experienced since the loss of internap as incoming pipe. I am not an Internap fanboy versus any other carrier.

My theory:

To my knowledge, they do not utilize routescience, etc (SCN). With internap for incoming traffic, our incoming packets took the FASTEST route and not just shortest path.

I am not aware of their traffic metrics now, but traffic coming in via two pipes and not optimized for speed versus AS count would either have no impact or have greater latency for certain users.

That is what I have experienced.