Hello,
I have a RAQ4i with about 30-40 virtual sites running (all within the same IP.)
My co-location provider charges me 14c Mb for any inbound data over 1.5Gb. Now im consistently going over this with no way (at present) of passing on the cost, because the RAQ has no accurate software for apportioning inbound traffic to virtual sites.

I would like some advice on how to best monitor inbound traffic figures for each individual site/customer.

You could install Mod_throttle or MRTG

You really don't have any good options here.

Most providers generally don't charge for inbound traffic on virtual hosting customers, just for outbound traffic (because it can be monitored so easily using statistics programs).

Sorry.

thanks cody. i take it this is prob the sad truth.... as i haven't found any softfware to help me yet....
being a novice RAQ owner/admin'r... is there a way i might be able to determine who is using all the inbound data on the RAQ and causing it to go way over my 1.5Gb quota ?

I did this once, definitely not a long-term solution...

Consolidate all the web log files of your sites on your PC, run a webstats program through them and then I found which sites were giving the most bandwidth issues...

You can try Weblog Expert Lite (which is what I used). Works on both PC and Linux web log files.

I know this might not be what you want to hear, and with 30-40 websites might be a serious pain, but why not get a RaQ somewhere else?

1.5 gb seems to be ridiculously low as far as I am concerned. Most virtual account allow far more than that, but for a dedicated server I find that kind of limitation almost unbelievable.

Is your host so cut priced that they have to make their revenue back in bandwidth charges?

I have been using 4webspace now for about 3 years (I think, time escapes me), and they allow 500gb monthly transfer for anyone who is not a porn site. They are $99 per month for a dedicated RaQ4, and I cannot recommend them highly enough. They are absolutely outstanding, have 24/7 phone/email support, and the people there are real people who seem to care about their customers.

Hey horoscopes thanks for your thoughts.
I have been considering moving elsewhere.... just to clarify though my limitation is only on inbound traffic - like ftp uploads and email - the outbound is uncapped.
i still think 1.5Gb of inbound is a bit low myself.
I pay $120 p/m +$40 p/m for weekly backups on my own RAQ4i telehoused at their premises. i do wonder if this is a good deal or not ?

you're welcome SM. If it's only for uploads that's not too bad I suppose. Somehow my tired old brain must have missed that part. The 4WS 500GB is combined, so that would be up/down and email in/out.

I don't know if 4WS offer colo, in fact I have a feeling they don't. I can only vouch for their level of service and reliability. To keep Mr. Fussypants (me) for 3 yrs or so, they must be good!

I have been with some pretty awful hosts over the years and have pretty much seen it all, so they come as a very refreshing change.

Good luck, whatever you decide to do.

H2000

ta h2000 - i just realised something too - webhosting.com is probably a US based site - mainly. im in australia.
anyway - i think i'll start hunting around for similar services to the one you mentioned, they do look good, so there must be some here that are competitive too.
Cheers
Splishman

4WS is in canada and they did offer colocation but they don't provide as much bandwidth in their colocation plans as they do in their dedicated server plans.

I shouldn't worry too much about them being in Canada.

We are based in the Middle East, but run a lot of Raqs with US providers. It's easy. Tech support can even be better (if they have 24 hr) because of the time difference, because they are never busy when we call them.

For moving sites Raq to Raq at another provider, have a look at the Cobalt migration utility. (CMU) It's so easy. Just pack the site, ftp directly to the new server, and unpack it.

Originally posted by BrianHawley
Tech support can even be better (if they have 24 hr) because of the time difference, because they are never busy when we call them.

I agree. I have called 4WS at most times of the day and it rarely takes more than 2 rings for them to answer. They are very fast, and if the server misbehaves and needs a reboot it's usually done virtually immediately upon a phone call, and within 5 minutes or so after I send them an email.

So at least if you're calling from australia you won't be listening to 60 minutes of hold music at $3 per minute! I don't think I've ever been on the phone to them for longer than about 2-3 minutes.

I understand ValueWeb even have a service that lets you reboot a hung Raq remotely, without calling them.

No idea how it works, but I would imagine some kind of web-based access to a remotely operable switch on the Raq's reset button. Obviously you couldn't talk to the Raq directly if it was completely hung.

Anybody tried it?

Originally posted by BrianHawley
I understand ValueWeb even have a service that lets you reboot a hung Raq remotely, without calling them.

No idea how it works, but I would imagine some kind of web-based access to a remotely operable switch on the Raq's reset button. Obviously you couldn't talk to the Raq directly if it was completely hung.

Anybody tried it?

I think I've seen the hardware for that in a high end PC mag. Isn't it something like a super KVM box which can be operated remotely?

I might be completely wrong though. Hey 4WS, this would be a great bit of equipment to invest in... although if I remember correctly the prices were very high ... or long .... 5 figures long I seem to remember.