http://www.alwayswebhosting.com/

2GB of space

60GB transfer

$24.95 a month


hmmmmmm.......i am on another site, they said they host 1500 sites.....

What's the point of your post?

What do you mean you are on another site and who hosts 1500 sites? :confused:

If you're talking about AWH then yes most likely, as I believe they have at least 9 servers.

well, ur right, i didnt state my question very clear.....heh......

i am basically asking if they are any good, or if they are a scam or whats up because thats a pretty good deal!

I have been with AWH since March and I have 7 sites hosted with Ronnie. He has been great, very attentive to my support questions. I have experienced no down time on my server since I've been with AHW and have had no problems.

cool, thats always good, is ur stuff fast? how many kb/s can u get from ur site thats hosted by them?

Check out this thread here:
http://forums.alwayswebhosting.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157

It shows some hosted sites and gives you an opportunity to try some large downloads and test the speed yourself :)

Trish

awesome dude. that guy by far has a better deals then any other sites i've seen, unless u count the non-legit ones.......

i was getting about 150k/s from them sites......

Seems a little too good to be true without massive overselling....

Originally posted by Webjunkie
Seems a little too good to be true without massive overselling.... Just what I was thinking. I think they are on RS servers, but still with the amount they are offering making a profit is near impossible...

no its not....

with rackshack u get 400gb transfer on each server....

he is offering 60gb of transfer a pop.....

so basically he can do 7 accounts per server, at $25 for one of them accounts....thats $175, and a rackshack server is $99 a month......so he is still making profit......

but u have to consider the lower priced ones, for some reason he still offers 60gb transfer with the lower prices account, hmmmmmm,...

KS9, AWH is offering 60GB of bandwidth with all acounts because most people don't even use close to 2GB. But he didn't want to put "unlimited bandwidth", as that would attract a lot of 100GB users etc... but then he didn't want to put it too low that some users who wanted to use about 10GB would have to end up paying for additional bandwidth. Overall, it still works, as not everyone will use that much, we know this from the Rackshack model too, not everyone uses 400Gb of data transfer on their servers.

Alan

Originally posted by KS9
no its not....

with rackshack u get 400gb transfer on each server....

he is offering 60gb of transfer a pop.....

so basically he can do 7 accounts per server, at $25 for one of them accounts....thats $175, and a rackshack server is $99 a month......so he is still making profit......

but u have to consider the lower priced ones, for some reason he still offers 60gb transfer with the lower prices account, hmmmmmm,... I do not consider $75 as making a profit. You have to consider the time he is putting into adminstering that server. I'm sure that the time he puts into the server is worth much more then $75. Think about it.

oh well, either way its still a profit......

yeah i was just about to say that not everyone is gonna use 60gb.......

but there are some people that will use whatever u give em.....heh....

$75 isn't much for managing a server a month and providing support to the customers, but it really depends on what you want to get paid. Some people like to work and would be willing to work for less. I doubt that AWH make $75 per server, they will make much more than that as they know that their customers won't use the 60GB bandwidth limit. You could call this overselling, but I don't like that word, as you're technically not overselling. For example, you've got a 400GB dedicated server from Rackshack and you have 20 customers with a 60GB limit... some people would call it overselling, but lets just say that all the customers used the full amount, thats 1200GB a month, which can be provided, but the host would simply have to pay for the additional bandwidth over the 400GB limit.

The only overselling that can be done is the disk space, if you say that each customer has X amount of disk space and they all want to use the full amount, but you've oversold, then that is what I call overselling, where you can't provide what you've sold. Looking at AWH's plans, their disk space looks about average.

Alan

Originally posted by ho247
$75 isn't much for managing a server a month and providing support to the customers, but it really depends on what you want to get paid. Some people like to work and would be willing to work for less. I doubt that AWH make $75 per server, they will make much more than that as they know that their customers won't use the 60GB bandwidth limit. You could call this overselling, but I don't like that word, as you're technically not overselling. For example, you've got a 400GB dedicated server from Rackshack and you have 20 customers with a 60GB limit... some people would call it overselling, but lets just say that all the customers used the full amount, thats 1200GB a month, which can be provided, but the host would simply have to pay for the additional bandwidth over the 400GB limit.

The only overselling that can be done is the disk space, if you say that each customer has X amount of disk space and they all want to use the full amount, but you've oversold, then that is what I call overselling, where you can't provide what you've sold. Looking at AWH's plans, their disk space looks about average.

Alan I disagree, it's plainly overselling. He's providing more than his allocated amount. With your example, if everyone used all their resources he would be out $1200 (800 GB * $1.50).

He's allocated 400GB that came with his dedicated server at Rackshack... but you are allowed to purchase more bandwidth as you wish. It's true that it'll cost him $1,200 more a month for the extra bandwidth if all teh 20 customers used their 60GB bandwidth, but that's his business and he just won't be making a profit, but that's not the point here... the point that is it can't be overselling if the extra bandwidth is there and it can be used. But compare this with disk space. Disk space is limited and so it can be oversold... get what I mean?

Alan

Originally posted by ho247
He's allocated 400GB that came with his dedicated server at Rackshack... but you are allowed to purchase more bandwidth as you wish. It's true that it'll cost him $1,200 more a month for the extra bandwidth if all teh 20 customers used their 60GB bandwidth, but that's his business and he just won't be making a profit, but that's not the point here... the point that is it can't be overselling if the extra bandwidth is there and it can be used. But compare this with disk space. Disk space is limited and so it can be oversold... get what I mean?

Alan I'm not complaining about diskspace. My point is that he is overselling. And i believe, firmly, that overselling is a bad business practice. $24.95 for 60 GB Bandwidth, that's ridiculous.

But it can't be classified as 'overselling', because he's technically got unlimited amount of bandwidth (he can go above the 400GB as he wishes). But then also you've got to take in account the specs of the server and if it can handle 1.2TB of data, lol.

Alan

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=48315


almost the same tread, they didnt bother to look at my numbers :)

Angel78, just read your post... I think that their model does work, as not everyone uses the full 60Gb as I said before. And for those who do, then fine he'll provide the service, but there are hundreds of uses that don't so he makes a profit off them.

He's playing the 'bandwidth game' and also putting the bandwidth high attracts a lot of customers. If he's making a profit and also users are happy with his services, there's nothing to complain about.

Alan

I am one of those low bandwith sites. I find that Ronnies service is great he has helped us track down several difficult problems from our end in a very cheerful manner. I am so happy with his service that I intend to move a whole bunch of sites over to his services.

Good customer service is really hard to find nowadays and he certainly offers a level that I have not found elsewhere.

My 2 cents


Steve

Well if he wasn`t making any profits he wold be out of the business by now, but i personally dislike false statements (aka we provide you 60 gb for 10 $)

it would be the same thing as McDonald would say Big Mack Menu comes now with 5 burgers and it will cost 5 $, but when you buy it you just get 3 because they tought that you want eat more than that(and they calculated their costs that way), and if you do they`ll say that you have got too many french fries (cpu ressources) and say to you go to Burger King (another host) that tastes better anyway (more extras) :)

So what you are saying is if Ronnie changes his wording to "up to 60 gigs of bandwith included with your package" you'd be happy.

Steve

Actually no, offering 60 GB /9,99$ is just a way not to get "killed" by the WHT ppl for offering unlimited bandwidht, but basicly is the same thing = false advertising

Originally posted by KS9
hmmmmmm.......i am on another site, they said they host 1500 sites.....
KS9 - Yes, we have around 1500 domains hosted across our 9 servers at this time, which is not an unbelievable number... (100 - 200 domains per server max depending on server load from the mix of sites, etc.)

Yes the download and access speeds are really fast (servers are Mod_gzip enabled too), test drive some of the downloads here,
http://forums.alwayswebhosting.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157

Iamdave - We are able to operate profitably with our pricing structure, provide the disk space needed and bandwidth offered to our customers, and provide top-notch customer / technical support at the same time to keep everyone happy. What's the problem?

ho247 is right -- We are ready to pay for overages if all the customers on a server start using their full 60 GB. we also have enough lower traffic sites on other servers that we have been able to balance out the larger sites very well (with only having to move a small handful of sites over the last 6 months).

This sums it up pretty nicely (Thanks Alan):

Originally posted by ho247
Angel78, just read your post... I think that their model does work, as not everyone uses the full 60Gb as I said before. And for those who do, then fine he'll provide the service, but there are hundreds of uses that don't so he makes a profit off them.

He's playing the 'bandwidth game' and also putting the bandwidth high attracts a lot of customers. If he's making a profit and also users are happy with his services, there's nothing to complain about.
Alan

Alan is right. Our business model does works on the idea that not every site will use their full allocation. We are profitable, have excellent uptime, fast servers, incredible tech support, and deliver on what we promised to our customers. I too see no problem, and we'll continue to expand under this model. :D

Those who feel threatened and hate AWH may continue to tear us apart in this thread, that's their right. We are running a smooth hosting operation and have many satisfied clients (search this forum for feedback on us) which means we are doing something right. haha. :D

No problem Ronnie :).

Alan

Well if your business plan is working fine for you than you are lucky man.

Maybe I sort of got confused, as we are currently (@ uni) testing some balancescorecard software, so we had to take a look at BP from various companies (thus none in the hosting business, i assume that IBM isnt hosting company like ppl here @ WHT), and one thing that was continously mentioned was the right distribution of the resources as a key to success, and i dont believe that gambling on how much a user will use is the right thing to do, but on the other hand this is a everyday practice in the web-hosting biz. ( because most of the users want a BMW for a couple of $)

Only thing that i have found bad about your BP are those 60 GB I think that is way to much fo <$, and can be considered just like unlimited BW as false advertising,in EU it's a crime, but may be alowed in the States.

I never said that you cant manage to have your users happy, or to serve them well,even alow few to push all the 60 GB by balancing the load, what i dislike is the way you advertise.

It can't be false advertising if he's put a limit on their and it can be provided. It'll be completely different if it did say "unlimited bandwidth" as that is impossible to provide.

Alan

so a plan with 999 mb space and 99999 GB of transfer ( you get kicked when you push more than 5 GB anyway) isnt false advertising?

btw webtrends icon is gone on your hp ?? ( or is it again my IE?)

Well no, 99999 GB will be completely false advertising as the host won't be able to provide that to one account. But AWH has and does provide the full 60GB for the customers that use it. Ronnie doesn't kick any one off if they are using 5GB or so, he let's them use the full amount that he advertisers. I think we are going around circles with this thread so I'm going to end it here and not reply now as I think everyone gets the point that the business model works and everyone is happy.

Thanks for informing me of the WebTrends button, seems that their site is down too.

Alan

Yeah why would he kick anyone off if they are only using 5GB of bandwidth? thats basically more profit for him....

i guess it works good the way they are working it.....if i sign up, i am pretty sure i'd probably use about 40-50gb atleast....

Originally posted by alwaysweb

Iamdave - We are able to operate profitably with our pricing structure, provide the disk space needed and bandwidth offered to our customers, and provide top-notch customer / technical support at the same time to keep everyone happy. What's the problem?
KS9 asked our opinion, and my opinion was given. I firmly believe that overselling is not the best business model to follow.

We are able to operate profitably with our pricing structure, provide the disk space needed and bandwidth offered to our customers, and provide top-notch customer / technical support at the same time to keep everyone happy.

I think what he is saying, is that we all know what you pay. You do not have some secret model, that other RS host do not have. I think they are pointing out (in their opinion) your model is flawed to make money long term. Whether they are right or not, time will tell.

To those who don't like his offering - don't buy it. What is the big deal? If he is willing to take the hit and chance 20 people signing up and using 60 GBs, then that is his deal. If he honors it, how is it false advertising???

Also, 1500 domians is not 1500 customers. So I can easily see how he gained 1500 domains. 1500 cusotmers would be BS. :)

I didn't say that it was false advertising. I stated that I do not think he has a good business model. I also never said that I didn't like his offering, I said that he is overselling.

Originally posted by iamdave
I said that he is overselling.

You don't know that, he probably could take some of those RS servers with unmetered 10 Mbps.
3200 GB per server will be enough to spare with his customers.

yeah but as it was already said, most of his customers probably dont even use 2gb of transfer a month......

A list of 10-20 websites hosted by AWH and using more than 50Gb bandwidth will convince me that AWH is serious.

unmetered 10 Mbps. 3200 GB per server will be enough to spare with his customers.

This of course is impossible. It is a piped 10 megs. Meaning actual use is roughly 1/3 this. This is just talking into account standard web hosting traffic. It is probably more like 1025 GBs you can get out of that drop. Still it is ~$.39/GB.

I signed with AWH about ten days ago. Too little time to give a full review but, so far, I have no complaints at all, on the contrary, only praise. I'm using around 12-14 GB transfer (estimate) monthly out of my 60GB quota, paying US$ 10 monthly, many features available, I couldn't think of a better web host. I really don't need a better web host. Keep up the good work Ronnie :-)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Also, 1500 domians is not 1500 customers. So I can easily see how he gained 1500 domains. 1500 cusotmers would be BS. :)
Although I know of hosts who would classify each domain as a customer. It looks more impressive in their speel - "We have 4500 customers throughout 38 countries.....blah....blah....blah" :rolleyes:

Originally posted by viol
I signed with AWH about ten days ago. Too little time to give a full review but, so far, I have no complaints at all, on the contrary, only praise. I'm using around 12-14 GB transfer (estimate) monthly out of my 60GB quota, paying US$ 10 monthly, many features available, I couldn't think of a better web host. I really don't need a better web host. Keep up the good work Ronnie :-)


Do you have a download site or bbs ?

My experience with AWH may be relevant here. To reiterate what I wrote in another topic:

"I just left that outfit because of faulty bandwidth monitoring. The bandwidth monitor indicated the site used 60 gb in 3 weeks, but the raw logs showed the site used less than half that amount. Ronnie said he didn't really care what the raw access logs said. We had to shut down our site for the remainder of the month. Needless to say, I went out and found a new webhost. Ronnie had been great to work with up to that point. I was frankly shocked by his lack of willingness to work with me to figure out what was going on with the bandwidth monitor."

Ronnie suggested when I wouldn't give up questioning the bandwidth monitor stats that "You are welcome to discontinue your hosting at any time."

He obviously wasn't going out of his way to keep me as a customer.

Angel78 - my site has almost no downloads and no bbs. It's a site about a game, with guides about this game, and the bandwidth is due to a lot of pictures (.jpg and .gif) the site has.

Sunny - Interesting your situation. Before I sign to AWH, I was hosted by Yahoo! Geocities (no flames, please). I had to move out of Y!G because I had reached the 20GB monthly transfer limit, actually, I was about to reach a 30GB transfer in just one month. Then I moved to AWH. But, before moving, I made some modifications in my pages so to make the pages lighter. Before moving to AWH, my daily transfer had decreased to about 600-650 MB. Now, that I'm at AWH, with the same pages, and I have almost the same amount of dayly page hits - 5000 (the only figure I can compare, since the stats of Y!G are very simple) and my daily transfer is around 0,4 GB (or 12GB per month).

Originally posted by viol

Sunny - Interesting your situation. Before I sign to AWH, I was hosted by Yahoo! Geocities (no flames, please). I had to move out of Y!G because I had reached the 20GB monthly transfer limit, actually, I was about to reach a 30GB transfer in just one month. Then I moved to AWH. But, before moving, I made some modifications in my pages so to make the pages lighter. Before moving to AWH, my daily transfer had decreased to about 600-650 MB. Now, that I'm at AWH, with the same pages, and I have almost the same amount of dayly page hits - 5000 (the only figure I can compare, since the stats of Y!G are very simple) and my daily transfer is around 0,4 GB (or 12GB per month).

so you are suggesting that AWH bandwidth meter should be correct?

I think Viol is suggesting that the bandwidth monitor stats are at best inconsistent. My site had the Ensim control panel and the accompanying bandwidth monitor was what Ronnie used, regardless of what the "bytes transferred" stats or raw access logs indicated. I don't know what cp or monitor Viol's site is using.

Originally posted by Sunny
I think Viol is suggesting that the bandwidth monitor stats are at best inconsistent. My site had the Ensim control panel and the accompanying bandwidth monitor was what Ronnie used, regardless of what the "bytes transferred" stats or raw access logs indicated. I don't know what cp or monitor Viol's site is using.

I am a little worried about this bandwidth thing because my site uses close to 25GB a month and may grow more in future. 60GB from AWH seems attractive enough, but if their bandwidth meter is faulty, then it ain't any good to me...

But I might give them a try and let's just see what happen...

Things may work out for you just fine at AWH. If you go with them and you have a choice in control panels, do not use the Ensim CP. That may avoid the monitoring problem.

Something else you may want to know as well...after about 2 weeks we had to move the site to a different server at AWH because our site was relatively busy. Apparantly we were put on a server that was already loaded and our site was too much for it. Moving the site again was, of course, a pain. So you may want to let him know what kind of traffic you expect so he wont ask you to move to another server once you get everything settled and transferred and working.

When all is said and done, my concern with my situation wasn't that the bandwidth monitor was faulty, it was Ronnie's response to the situation that made me decide to find a new host.

Originally posted by Sunny
Things may work out for you just fine at AWH. If you go with them and you have a choice in control panels, do not use the Ensim CP. That may avoid the monitoring problem.

Something else you may want to know as well...after about 2 weeks we had to move the site to a different server at AWH because our site was relatively busy. Apparantly we were put on a server that was already loaded and our site was too much for it. Moving the site again was, of course, a pain. So you may want to let him know what kind of traffic you expect so he wont ask you to move to another server once you get everything settled and transferred and working.

When all is said and done, my concern with my situation wasn't that the bandwidth monitor was faulty, it was Ronnie's response to the situation that made me decide to find a new host.

Thanks for all the advices. I understand what you are facing...if I get the same kind of response from Ronnie, you bet I will do the same.

verba - I'm not suggesting AWH bandwidth metering is correct, because I don't have means to actually test it, I'm not an expert on the matter. I just made a comparison between AWH and Y!G. Obviously that this comparison makes me believe that AWH is probably doing a fair BW metering.

Sunny - yes, it's a good conclusion. Since I don't look at raw logs (I have to learn how to do it yet), I _have_ to believe in the web host.

Sunny again - I agree with you. For me, it's more important the way we are treated by the support team than the problem itself. So far, I don't have complaints about AWH.

Originally posted by Sunny
Ronnie had been great to work with up to that point. I was frankly shocked by his lack of willingness to work with me to figure out what was going on with the bandwidth monitor."

Ronnie suggested when I wouldn't give up questioning the bandwidth monitor stats that "You are welcome to discontinue your hosting at any time."

He obviously wasn't going out of his way to keep me as a customer. [/B]

Hi Sunny,

Sorry I haven't been able to reply until now, my account was locked by the moderators until we straightened something else out.

I can't remember your URL at the moment (and there is no 'www' link below your post), otherwise I'd try to look up in my email archives for our past communications to remind myself how things ended (of course, we promptly remove cancelled accounts' information from our database).

Anyways, AWH does use Ensim on 90% of our servers, and unfortunately have to rely on the stats provided therein. Of course, there are quite a few known bugs in Ensim's bandwidth monitor (search the rackshack forums and you'll find piles of 'em) and we have applied the latest patches on all our servers as they have been released. I very well concur that the bandwidth stats could have been wrong.

Understanding that the bandwidth monitor in ensim isn't the strongest measure of bandwidth, I surely would never have intended to scare you off with "we're going with Ensim's stats, and that's that." If I said something along those lines, please accept my apologies. Must've been a stressful day or week. Either way, I'm sorry. I think the stats we're using now (with latest bug fixes applied) are a lot closer to what the actual log report, according to some of the customers I've asked to analyze their logs to compare.

We're flexible when the ensim stats show a site going over 60 GB/month -- We DO try to work with them to validate the stats and then find an appropriate course of action. If its a temporary spike from a news mention or something, we let it slide, no problem. If its a continued growth pattern, we would surely offer a dedicated server hosting solution....

I also appreciate your suggestion to let us know your expected or actual traffic patterns when you sign up, that's good advice for clients moving an existing site to any new host. (We've only had to move sites a handful of times to another server to balance things) Again, Sunny, I can't find your URL Sunny so I can't recall the exact situation.

Thanks.

We're flexible when the ensim stats show a site going over 60 GB/month -- We DO try to work with them to validate the stats and then find an appropriate course of action. If its a temporary spike from a news mention or something, we let it slide, no problem. If its a continued growth pattern, we would surely offer a dedicated server hosting solution....


I don't want to beat a dead horse here as we've all made our points, but the statement that you work with site to validate stats was certainly not the case with me. I presented to you Analog data showing that the site didn't use nearly the about of bandwidth the monitor indicated, and I asked you why the site report indicated a much lesser amount of bytes transferred than the monitor. You never gave me an answer and said after my asking for clarification:

"I've told you several times that we use the numbers on our bandwidth report irregardless of the conflict with what you're seeing on the site report."

and when I asked you if it was fair to me that I had to close my site because of faulty stats you replied:

"The only monitoring system PROVIDED WITH ENSIM is what we have to base
our bandwidth statistics from.

You are welcome to discontinue your hosting at any time, as I do not
feel that I can offer an explanation or reason that would satisify your
questions or my own..."

And that was that. I decided I was moving.

There was no working with me or validation of stats offered on your part. I had to close down my site till the end of the month, about a week.


If this exchange here on WHT has improved things for your customers from now on, then I'm happy. I hope everything works out for everyone. I'm very happy now with my new host, so everything works out in the end...no hard feelings.

Hi Sunny,

Yes, after further research the bandwidth monitor problem came to light, we've taken a new outlook on it. Sorry my emails didn't come off well.

Best of luck in the future.

I find it funny how certain people like to find mistakes in hosting companies that are doing nothing but good and honest business. No hosting company is perfect, every company will always have its defects, but that is just human nature, what's basically important is to find one that satisfies your needs as a potential client.

I've tried AWH for a couple of months now as I bought a dedicated server through them. We established a deal that I would pay the Rackshack server through Ronnie at basically same standard price and pay him to be my system admin from time to time as freelance work.

Me knowing very little about complex operations in a server, Ronnie and AWH have been nothing but patient and have helped me out with any problems or questions that I've had. The support is excellent and I have never seen such a dedication from a company to take care of its clients in an almost personal level.

I wanted to learn how to use the PHP Append feature so that I could automatically insert a header into all my network sites without the webmasters having to do it by themselves, I understood that this needed to be done by either MOD Layout or PHP Append, we went with PHP append and Ronnie wrote me down the steps in a Notepad while sending me a copy to my E-mail while showing me a screen shot of the over 20 support tickets he was working on at the same time.

This is a company that works hard to satisfy their customers and TRUST me, their business model is top notch and works just fine.

Sometimes a company just makes it unlike others who still haven't found that special strategy to attract those customers they desire. The fact that as stated AWH has their servers with Rackshack which is the cheapest NOC on the planet just makes a good profit even more probable. Also remember that you can become a reseller through Rackshack and purchase your own additional servers as a reseller, which cuts down the costs even more.

After being with friggin TechnoHoes and later Kikko Networks for about 6 months and working my butt off trying to find a good hosting company tailored to my needs..........I found AWH to be my solution, and so far so good........I'm a very happy customer.

-Ruben Garay
Webmaster/Founder
World of Britney.com

Director of Operations
w000t! Networks

As far as the discrepancy between the Ensim bandwidth monitor and Analog/Webalizer/etc. generated stats, I'm not too surprised about that. With CPanel, the same discrepancy existed, with the CPanel bandwidth number being larger than the Analog/Webalizer reported number (the discrepancy increases as more gigabytes of transfer are used). Furthermore, Analog and Webalizer never reported the same bandwidth usage either. And yes, I realize that these stats programs don't take into account ftp/e-mail/subdomain bandwidth, but those shouldn't have accounted for a 5GB difference on CPanel when their use was almost nonexistant. Add to that the fact that they've found known problems that they had to patch for the CPanel/Ensim bandwidth monitors and that only makes things more confusing.

Originally posted by Janet
Add to that the fact that they've found known problems that they had to patch for the CPanel/Ensim bandwidth monitors and that only makes things more confusing.
Seriously, what's confusing you? :D

Seriously, what's confusing you?

The real bandwidth usage, since there can be a large discrepancy between stats generated from access logs and the bandwidth number provided by the control panel. Which can a customer rely on when both turn out to be inaccurate? You just said in a previous post that "Understanding that the bandwidth monitor in ensim isn't the strongest measure of bandwidth..."

It certainly didn't help Sunny when you pretty much blew off any possibility that Ensim's bandwidth numbers could be wrong.

Anyways, my post was just to let Sunny know that she isn't alone as far as the discrepancy between the control panel bandwidth number and the bandwidth number reported by Analog, regardless of host. How a host handles the situation is another matter.

I hoped to clarify that if you hit exactly 60 GB your site will not magically be turned off. We'll discuss it with you, look at your logs and ours, etc. Its not the end of the world. The sky is *not* falling.

Per my post above, I have apologized to Sunny , as I did not mean to discount his issue with the bandwidth report.

I've also identified that we have applied the patches to the third party Ensim control panel software to try to get our numbers as accurate as possible. We are doing what can be done to sync things up!

As I already mentioned, my first post in this thread was to merely point out that the discrepancy between Analog stats and Ensim stats isn't a problem necessarily specific to Ensim or AWH. And that CPanel causes the same issue, and that I'm not sure about the accuracy of stats programs like Analog since different stats programs spit out different bandwidth numbers from the same access logs. And that if there's also inaccuracy in the control panel bandwidth reporting, that it only confuses things more because it's hard for a customer to determine just how much bandwidth they're really using.

So what's confusing YOU?:D

Originally posted by iamdave
KS9 asked our opinion, and my opinion was given. I firmly believe that overselling is not the best business model to follow.

What is this grudge that you have with overselling? It is a proven fact that not everyone is going to use all of their disk space and bandwidth. As long as they provide the customer with what they advertised, it shouldn't matter if they're overselling.

Your math is way off. You can't just say 400 GB / 60 GB = ~6 customers and 6 customers * $9.95 per month = not enough to pay for the server. That's not how things work. Take a probability and statistics class. All they are advertising is that you're allowed to use up to 60 GB of data transfer, IF YOU NEED IT. Most people won't even need more than 1-2 GB, so it averages out pretty well. It is definitely a profitable business model.

Yes, there are a lot of bad hosts that offer too much bandwidth and don't actually let you use it all, but from what I've read, AlwaysWebHosting isn't one of them.