Hi I'm new here..,

I have been looking to host a site that will take up bandwidth in the 2000 gb range.. and I've found that Tera-Byte.com sells bandwidth at an amazingly cheap price. I discussed this with one of my server administrators, and he pointed out that Tera-Byte may be slower than a U.S. based host because visitors to my site would have to transmit data over international pipelines.

My question is, is this true? and if so, what would be the extent of the difference between a Canada-based host and a U.S.-based host, if i were planning to cater a website to a primarily U.S. audience?

Also, I would also appreciate any suggestions for other hosting services. I require a very high-end server.. so about 2 gigs of ram, raid, etc..

Thanks :)

Hmmmmm... Something doesn't sound right here.


I discussed this with one of my server administrators, and he pointed out that Tera-Byte may be slower than a U.S. based host because visitors to my site would have to transmit data over international pipelines.


Where are you based? If you're in the US, then that argument doesn't make sense, as I'm aware of at least 3 routers that run between the US and Canada (thus avoiding the need for 'international pipelines').

If you're overseas (from Korea or Australia for that matter) traffic will have to go virtually the same route to either Canada or America anyway (and in most instances, bounce into America before going to Canada).

For example, I'm based in Australia, and this is what I get for a traceroute to Tera-Byte :


C:\WINDOWS>tracert http://www.tera-byte.com

Tracing route to http://www.tera-byte.com [216.234.161.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 47 ms 18 ms 16 ms BNG-144-132-32-1.vic.bigpond.net.au [144.132.32.
1]
2 27 ms 11 ms 13 ms CPE-61-9-129-4.vic.bigpond.net.au [61.9.129.4]
3 42 ms 14 ms 7 ms 202.12.157.8
4 69 ms 9 ms 14 ms fastethernet4-1-0.win4.Melbourne.telstra.net [13
9.130.61.117]
5 31 ms 11 ms 12 ms 203.50.78.130
6 26 ms 13 ms 12 ms 203.50.7.170
7 37 ms 23 ms 30 ms Pos5-0.way-core4.Adelaide.telstra.net [203.50.6.
162]
8 62 ms 101 ms 49 ms Pos2-1.wel-core4.Perth.telstra.net [203.50.6.94]

9 62 ms 61 ms 97 ms GigabitEthernet5-0.wel-core3.Perth.telstra.net [
203.50.113.29]
10 64 ms 54 ms 57 ms GigabitEthernet4-0.wel-gw1.Perth.telstra.net [20
3.50.113.18]
11 321 ms 307 ms 308 ms 205.174.75.69
12 315 ms 347 ms 313 ms 166.49.228.9
13 306 ms 304 ms 312 ms POS2-3.GW6.SFO4.ALTER.NET [157.130.197.77]
14 311 ms 309 ms 297 ms 504.ATM2-0.XR2.SFO4.ALTER.NET [152.63.53.30]
15 307 ms 302 ms 303 ms 191.at-1-0-0.TR4.SCL1.ALTER.NET [152.63.49.10]
16 416 ms 381 ms 415 ms 152.63.3.209
17 384 ms 404 ms 390 ms 298.ATM6-0.XR2.CHI6.ALTER.NET [146.188.209.9]
18 396 ms 408 ms 391 ms 190.ATM6-0.GW6.CHI6.ALTER.NET [146.188.209.181]

19 * * * Request timed out.
20 365 ms 369 ms 393 ms 204.50.128.138
21 400 ms 443 ms 418 ms core1-s5-0.edm.tera-byte.com [207.107.204.158]
22 397 ms 366 ms 419 ms cat6006-vlan10.edm.tera-byte.com [216.234.160.26
]
23 373 ms 384 ms 452 ms fw-tb-fxp0.edm.tera-byte.com [216.234.160.42]
24 402 ms 424 ms 362 ms http://www.tera-byte.com [216.234.161.11]

Trace complete.


As you can see at steps 13-14 and 17-18, it's bouncing through Alter.net's routers at San Fran and Chicago before entering Canada.

So unless I'm completely missing something, then there's something in your sysadmin's argument which isn't quite right.

That said, I'm not sure if Tera-Byte would necessarily be able to accomodate your bandwidth requirements - I highly recommend you e-mail him directly and check or I'll bug him to check this thread.

I also recommend thinking about VDI or UltraSpeed USA for your requirements, or RackSpace... Though I guess RackSpace would be out of your price range? :)

2000 gb? isn't that 2 terabytes of bandwidth? i think if you need that much, just go straight for an upstream provider like alter.net.

as for tera-byte being across the border, i do notice dramatic speed differences. i have been with 2 us based hosts. 1 that from vdi and one from alabanza. from one of my shells, i could transfer at rates upto 1 mb/s both ways. as for tera-byte, the highest i've reached was about 370k uploading to my raq and downloading at roughly over 100k. Of course this could be different depending on what you used and the routing. i just based it on my transfer rates to and from my us based shell.

i tried to find what tera-byte had exactly and from which provider but i was unsuccessful. anyone have any info? if tera-byte had a direct link from alter.net or another provider instead of going through sprint-canada, i "think" speed would be much faster since they peer at lots of points..but i could be wrong as to what they have. feel free to correct me.

[Edited by teck on 01-03-2001 at 06:11 PM]

two terabytes a month in bandwidth isnt an issue with us,however i bet thats a misprint :) i also personally disagree with the statment about it being slower coming from canada, in the 6 years ive hosted websites ive only ever seen once in any forum or newsgroup that we are not as fast as our US competitors.(unless of course they were being throttled cause they didnt want to pay any more) that post was made by Teck and it was here at webhostingtalk.

Steve

sorry, i'm not really complaing but i was just sharing my opinion on my expieriences.

edit: on yeah, i still dont know why it always times out after: 204.50.128.138

[Edited by teck on 01-03-2001 at 06:17 PM]

no problem so was i :) and your right it would be faster if i had a direct alternet route, i however wont for 3 reasons
1.) they are the most expensive provider there is
2.) they only have a t-1 into Edmonton where my noc is
3.) i can get better pricing for the same line through a second tier provider that has the capacity into the US where i need it. (adds one hop to the mix will be up Feb 9th)

Steve

edit note to techs note that hop is denying ICMP traffic its supposed to do that



[Edited by Keeg on 01-03-2001 at 06:21 PM]

cool steve. so can you disclose what you guys have now and what's coming in on the 9th? ...just so i can brag about it to my friends that my webserver has better links than theirs :)

i can but i dont think it would be an appropriate post here you can email me or if an admin want to give the ok ill do it here

Steve

That question has popped up a lot here what kinda connection tera-byte has.......

Originally posted by Tae-Hwan
Hi I'm new here..,

I have been looking to host a site that will take up bandwidth in the 2000 gb range.. and I've found that Tera-Byte.com sells bandwidth at an amazingly cheap price. I discussed this with one of my server administrators, and he pointed out that Tera-Byte may be slower than a U.S. based host because visitors to my site would have to transmit data over international pipelines.
hi Tae-Hwan love the site you have - you're a fellow Anime fan :D 2000 GB :eek: is that all for http://fanficlibrary.com/ ?

Originally posted by Technics
That question has popped up a lot here what kinda connection tera-byte has.......

yeah..so can a mod over here approve the post?

thank you for all your replies.

no, it was not a misprint.. i do require about 60 gigabytes of traffic a day. i plan on creating a very large site...
with a minimum average of 1000 simultaneous users online at the same time, interacting with each other. my estimate was 2 terabytes of transfer, yes.

Keeg, so if i had a server with your company, and i was connecting to it from california, would it be as fast as if i were connecting to a server in say, florida? ( dialtoneinternet ;) )

oh hi, eva2000...
i remember you from the clickquick discussion boards... no, fanficlibrary.com doesn't come close to 2000 gb ^_^ neither do any of my other websites.. but i am investing a lot of money and time into my newest upcoming website, and i am pretty sure that it will need a hefty amount of bandwidth.

Originally posted by Tae-Hwan
oh hi, eva2000...
i remember you from the clickquick discussion boards... no, fanficlibrary.com doesn't come close to 2000 gb ^_^ neither do any of my other websites.. but i am investing a lot of money and time into my newest upcoming website, and i am pretty sure that it will need a hefty amount of bandwidth. ah yes clickquick/geekvillage :) i am still there on a regular basis :D

i think you'll be needing load balanced dual cpu servers to handle that load before you reach 2,000gb

don't suppose the new site has anything to do with Anime - just being nosy :)

damn, i dont even think a top warez ftp site does 2 terabytes a month.

Originally posted by Keeg
i can but i dont think it would be an appropriate post here you can email me or if an admin want to give the ok ill do it here

Steve


Two people have asked, it is a direct question, feel free to post a direct answer Steve.

the answer is
i have
3 ds3's (45 megs each)
2 oc3's (155 megs each)
1 oc12 (600 megs or so)
on Feb 9th we will have another oc-3
currently i use between 110 and 140 megs a second of bandwidth
no i do not pay for all that bandwidth we pay based on what we use based on what our customers order, so if someone came to me today and said i want 100 megs of bandwidth i can say yes but it would take me a day to get my pipes capable of handleing the new bandwidth level.
we are multihomed
with sprint psinet and AT&T
we will be adding a 4th to the mix in feb it will be to UUNET through group telecom a local provider that uses them as their main backbone.
to Tae-Hwan's question there would probably be no difference between us and them but it would depend on the backbone the majority of your customers use, that being said there is no difference for a web user if the download speed is the difference of 370k to 1 meg they are both faster than most every connection out there.
we did do some tests for a client of 4webspace and we downloaded at an average of 310KB per sec from an alternet line, which translates to 2.5 megs a second which is pretty darn quick :)

Originally posted by Keeg
we did do some tests for a client of 4webspace and we downloaded at an average of 310KB per sec from an alternet line, which translates to 2.5 megs a second which is pretty darn quick :)


damn steve, very impressive of what the noc is capable. i'm amazed that all that bandwidth goes out to where you are located. anyway, to the above quote, you mean megabits right..not megabytes?

odd question but do you guys have mrtg graphs for public view or are they internal only?

thanks for your answer, Keeg. i will probably go with tera-byte... :)

still looking at other hosts.. my main concern is bandwidth costs and it seems like none other can compare.. i wonder if it's because tera-byte is in canada..

[edit]

looking over the thread, i just realized that i was the only one using message icons... i guess it shows that i'm a newbie.. o.O

[Edited by Tae-Hwan on 01-04-2001 at 12:39 AM]

tera-byte does have bandwidth usage graphs for each account with you can access from the control pannel.
I think they are updated every five minutes which is good.

Tae, yes tera-byte does have great bandwidth prices but take a look at maxim.net, theirs are even better.
(i never tried maxim but some people on this board are happy with them)

teck no that test which i posted in this forum was megabytes per second. As far as mrtg charts go they are for ours and dedicated customers use only, at this time all dedicated servers have their own mrtg chart on their dns control panel.

Steve

Tae-Hwan -- Apart from cheap bandwidth, the service the company provides is excellent. There support is great. What else would one wont? :)

Webnetics before they went bust where based with Maxim ... They hated the service... But i always found the server fast.

wow! maxim.net bandwidth seems unbeatable.. it sounds.. too good to be true. i did a search in these forums and found mixed reviews about them, so.. i don't think i'll go with them, even though it is very tempting.. and more so, since their noc is based only a couple hours away from me. ^_^

tera-byte is still my first choice.. they seem to have the best reputation.

Maxim does have good pricing, i have a customer with 3 servers on my lan and 1 on theirs the only thing he has ever said bad about them is they charge for every little thing they do for him, but other than that he says they are as fast as us.

Steve

Yea thats how they make up their money, I think when your looking for a dedicated server provider you should look at their customer service and care and not just their prices, but this is the #1 mistake most people make.

I´m at Maxim paying over $ 800 a month and I am not satisfied with speed at all (to europe, seems o.k. in US)

Originally posted by tim2
I´m at Maxim paying over $ 800 a month and I am not satisfied with speed at all (to europe, seems o.k. in US)

whats your website URL?

Originally posted by Keeg
Maxim does have good pricing, i have a customer with 3 servers on my lan and 1 on theirs the only thing he has ever said bad about them is they charge for every little thing they do for him, but other than that he says they are as fast as us.

Steve


As Tim stated, the two people I asked who had servers there were not happy with the speed. Obviously it's all relative, and what is fast enough for one may not be fast enough for another, but that's just the comments they made.

I also waded through their docs and didn't like the fees listed. Not sure if they actually charge for some of the stuff on the list, but it wasn't something I was interested in. (I looked at Maxim before colocating at Tera).

Prices for some things are very good however and depending on what your need and intended use for the server is, it might work out fine.

As for my URL at maxim. Is it o.k. to post a adult site :)

I guess I have another too let me see...

O.k. here I got a softcore one, in foreign language so it won´t be spam either coz no one here would buy something, I hope this is o.k., if not, sorry Chicken...

http://www.www-erotik.com/

How does the site load for you

Well the speed looks o.k. for me right now. Maybe the other pages utilizing php (90% of my pages) reduze the speed, but then again, it´s a double PIII 700 with 1 GB RAM and SCSI...for no more than around ~ 15,000 pages per day, almost all with a bit php in them (including content from a central location on the same server).

The example URL from above has no php at all, it´s plain html.

As for the service: It´s right that you have to fill out a form and fax that before any action takes place but then again, in the first weeks, I had to call them a couple of times, weekend, night, etc, and there was always someone on the phone and did help (hard reboot). ONE time I had to talk on the answering machine and was called back in 15 minutes.

But I must add, that I had a guy (not from maxim) who installed me everything. Maxim did the Linux install, and from there it´s up to you...

But that is o.k. with the prices. You need to know what you´re doing (e.g. know apache, dns, bind, linux, ssh whatever you want or need).

I called Maxim one day and told them that their speed seems to be o.k. in the US from what I can say from here, but with the #1 provider (90% of all surfers) in germany (btw the biggest country in germany) the speed is TERRIBLE most of the time. They told me they can´t do anything about it.
Of course I didn´t expect they would rent an additional pipe from UUNET or Teleglobe or whatever just for me, but I thought for european customers/surfers.

If you can test the speed from all over the US for wa while and it´s fine for you, and you say the rest of the world isn´t important for you, and you´re experienced or have a webmaster, then maxim might be for you.

Point for Maxim: IP´s at no cost, just need to use them.

Tim2, post on adult site is fine.....

We colo'd at maxim for 2 years, from when they were quite small to a few months ago, left on good terms, just didnt need the boxes there anymore.

We always found the speed and value very good, and I would expect to see even bigger improvements coming from them with the hostcentric merger and the backbone they are creating between datacentres and other peering points, I will be doing a new project in the US in a few months and will most likely be using them for it.

The points about needing a form for anything needing done are valid, it was annoying at times, but im sure they have their reasons.

Regards,

Tony Lucas