Can people using RackSpace produce enough income to pay for expenses when using RackSpace and only getting 30 gigs of transfer per month? After 30 gig, you have to start paying for more.
It seems like it would be hard to break even with only 30 gig. Is anyone making money with only 30 gig in their package?
Thanks,
Bradley

or maybe it's just that your used to this new industry standard of cogent bandwidth of 400 Gb a month for 99 bucks a month??? :confused:

311 Web Hosting Master,
I am just a newbie trying to figure out what managed dedicated server to get for my web site. It is definitely a trial. Everyone loves Rackspace here and I would too if they only gave more bandwidth. 30 gigs won't even handle my first site, let alone the rest of them. I need a great managed server but with way more gig transfer than rackspace. I am not even sure what cogent bandwidth is, but am reading up.
Thanks,
Bradley

The difference is the type of customers that rackspace has. It would be viable to go with rackspace if your site is mission critical and cannot afford to be down. (Say an ecommerce site that sells $24,000 per day). If they are down for one hour, it costs them $1,000.

It would not be economically feasible to put a site like a personal homepage up at rackspace (unless you are really rich).

If someone uses rackspace for shared hosting, they are generally going to charge quite a bit more than someone that uses a cogent based provider.

The reason everyone loves rackspace is because they are a very high quality provider. They can afford to offer you better support, and better network uptime because they charge you more. It all just comes down to how much you and your clients are willing to pay. ;)

Originally posted by 311
or maybe it's just that your used to this new industry standard of cogent bandwidth of 400 Gb a month for 99 bucks a month??? :confused:

This is so true with people now days. They think the Rackshack model is the standard. It is not. I honestly can't wait for Cogent to go under. I have stated this before. (We will see how well some companies planned.) I use Cogent too. :confused:

Like was said above... most businesses make a LOT of revenue with just one GB. So 30GB makes enough revenue to buy 6000 even at RackSpace prices.

And when Cogent does go under, it will be chaos at first but things will settle out fast and prices will stabilize. I can't wait to see some heads roll, but I think most everyone has back-up plans.

I like RackSpace alot, we use to host under their servers (back in the day :) ) and they were awesome. You can now get servers from them for $190/month you know. The bandwidth isnt that expensive if you budget accordingly. If you were to offer a 2 gig of bandwidth plan, you could still make a profit off of the plan @ $9.95/month.

But you also have to tell customers that your site will be up 99.99999% of the time, and will be on one of the best networks on the web.

The ones who value this would pay more for better hosting.

Just as a heads up :)


Jim

Lol, if customers that host with Rackspace don't make money, then they wouldn't be hosting there, and if they weren't hosting there, Rackspace would have no customers. And we all know that Rackspace now have a little over 5,000 servers I think, which is extremely good, when you compare this to Rackshack, who now probably have about 6,000 servers.

It just depends what sites you need hosted and how critical it is that it's on a superior network, with superior support. Even if you're running a small site, you'll still want those assurances of 99.999% uptime SLA and true 24/7 support.

Alan

I'll pay $10/G to a rackspace server owner to host my web hosting company website :)

By the way does anyone know someone who may provide a reseller account on a rackspace server? I need a really high quality service to host small but important websites.

Mac

My site does more than 4 terabytes every month in bandwidth. According to a RackSpace custom quote, this would cost me $10,600 US every month just to keep the sites up and running.

The difference between my site and an e-commerce site is that I am a content provider -- that is, one who relys on advertising revenue to turn a profit.

If I had 4 terabytes worth of traffic to a site where I was selling a product or service, you're damn right I would be going with RackSpace. Simply because any downtime whatsoever costs me money, and also, my traffic is much more lucrative.

Without the value providers such as Cogent and RackShack (RackShack offerred 300 GB of traffic long before they started using Cogent, which proves they can do it even if Cogent bites it) the cost would throw me out of house and home.

Mainly the people who criticize Cogent are competitors who can not match their prices. They're the same people who started those rumors about how bad Cogent was doing.

I don't think Cogent will be going under anytime soon. I know someone who works for them and says they are doing good. I also believe Cogent just bought out an ISP. I don't think companies going under go out and buy other companies.

they owe a lot of money... don't they?

and wasn't that PSINET? PSInet isnt a big deal i dont think

Originally posted by clocker1996
they owe a lot of money... don't they?

and wasn't that PSINET? PSInet isnt a big deal i dont think

PSInet isn't a big deal? I'd see that as a relatively big deal. Of course they owe a lot of money, name one carrier who doesen't :D. And people make fun of their stocks, etc. but last i checked, people loved worldcom, and isn't cogen't stock above worldcom's still?, that might say something heh.

The replies to my thread seem telling. There are not a bunch of people saying that they can make money using rackspace's 30 gig of transfer. I wish I could do a scientific poll.

Originally posted by bradley
The replies to my thread seem telling. There are not a bunch of people saying that they can make money using rackspace's 30 gig of transfer. I wish I could do a scientific poll.

if you consider the average rackshack box uses 30-60gb of traffic a month, it makes a lot more sense when you toss in the law of averages.

i did some sums before rackshack started on 10mbps boxes and the average server pushed 100 GB a month, basically i just looked at the last post headsurfer had made about the number of servers, then worked out a rough average from the mrtgs and divided one by the other, i reckon anywhere between 80 and 120 is within reason but these days as their owners have had more chance for their sites to mature so that could be higher :)

Originally posted by mas3000
Mainly the people who criticize Cogent are competitors who can not match their prices. They're the same people who started those rumors about how bad Cogent was doing.


And you're basing your comments in?
Doesn't CogenCo have a bad peering? doesn't owe a lot of money? don't they lose money every month?
Well... I don't think that those are only "rumors"

Originally posted by Jedito


And you're basing your comments in?
Doesn't CogenCo have a bad peering? doesn't owe a lot of money? don't they lose money every month?
Well... I don't think that those are only "rumors"

Who isn't loosing money now days? How many carriers lost money last month? And cogents peering might not be perfect, but it's not terrible.

Originally posted by porcupine


Who isn't loosing money now days? How many carriers lost money last month? And cogents peering might not be perfect, but it's not terrible.

If you don't consider terrible that sometimes when I do a traceroute to a server in the east coast it go first to San Jose (CA):rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jedito


If you don't consider terrible that sometimes when I do a traceroute to a server in the east coast it go first to San Jose (CA):rolleyes:

*shrug* if you consider the fact you pay 1/20 of what you do for other providers, it's not terrible, it still gets there, and in a decent amount of time (for everything except gameservers almost). Especially if you consider what bandwidth costs are in austraila :D

i get jumped all over the coast on sprintlink, level3, yipes, aleron, and verio sometimes. verio often actually.

doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen. but yeah, for the price value, i wouldn't complain and would see cogent as a positive addition to any network (addition, meaning, other connections present of course).

Originally posted by Jedito


If you don't consider terrible that sometimes when I do a traceroute to a server in the east coast it go first to San Jose (CA):rolleyes:

I'm only replying because no one seems to have answered your question...

The answer is yes, many webhosting companies make money with 30 GB of transfer or less a month.

Most of our dedicated server clients use significantly less.

It all depends on how you market and what kinds of customers you attract.

Jeff

As far as Cogent's peering, from what I've seen, it's not bad, I've seen all backbones route in odd ways for certain routes, it depends on a number of factors, and now that they've picked up PSINet, their peering options have improved considerably (from what I've read it's one of the reasons they picked up PSINet).