I run AnimeWallpapers.com, hosted by A+ Hosting (www.aplushosting.com). Today, they e-mailed me telling me that my site was taking up too much CPU time. It's all static files (HTML and JPG), but the sheer number of hits is bogging down their server. So, I have to move to another host, away from their unlimited bandwidth deal (basically I just have to show their button on my pages; see http://www.aplushosting.com/english/bandwidth.phtml ) that has sustained my 207 GB/month site these past few months...

What hosts would you suggest?

I'm thinking about superb.net, forsite.com and prontel.com. They all offer "unlimited" bandwidth; the first two are on ISPcheck Guaranteed, and my friend knows the CEO of the last one.

I'll be *shocked* if you find any hosting company advertising "unlimited bandwidth" that would consider a site using 200+ gigs per month acceptible. Make sure you read the TOS/AUP before you go through the trouble of transferring your files.

unlimited ? Please, if that was the case, why doesn't yahoo host with them?

Hmm, do you guys think paying $20 and a button for 200 GB is too good a deal, and I was just lucky before but probably won't be lucky again?

I know so....

Lets do some math.

Hosts cost for bandwidth lets say $1.50 per gb

you use 207 gb a month

It costs the host $310.50 a month and you pay them $20 a month, thus they loose $290.50 plus all the CPU time on the server.

and thats a LOW bandwidth cost as well, many are higher some are lower.

Thats way more than a good deal. Any chances of telling me what company is offering that?

Originally posted by DanielP
It costs the host $310.50 a month and you pay them $20 a month, thus they loose $290.50 plus all the CPU time on the server.

A+ Hosting's (www.aplushosting.com) unlimited bandwidth offer requires that you display "Hosted by A+ Hosting" button on all your pages. Theoretically, the new customers that you bring in are supposed to help pay for it.

Well I just got an e-mail from forsite.com... they're saying they don't monitor bandwidth usage, but 207 GB would probably exhaust too much CPU time on their server. Now I'm asking them what if I pay them for a "virtual server" and run thttpd instead of Apache (thttpd is a very lightweight web server that can saturate a T1 connection with only a Pentium 100; it is also lacking in features, but has what I need).

It is posted in the original post at the top.

Pmak1, even with a banner, that's a smokin' deal. I would think that it is time to look for dedicated server options. Even if you can get away with it again for a short time, I don't think it will be long until you need something all to yourself (or two somethings clustered, heh).

Just find some friends with DSL and and cable modems, get a dynamic DNS and point the domain to one of them then split the website contents onto different cable modems or DSL lines.

Sure in maybe 6 months or so the cable company would send e-mail telling you to stop with the website, but if you aren't selling anything, they can't stop you as per contract.

Jason.....

Cable modems and DSL contracts and TOS clearly state that users may not run any type of servers on their connection.......


Thats not a very feisable idea @ all. Espically for 207gb bandwidth... That'd take 7-12 connections.......

2 cable modems at 384kbps/avg
1 SDSL line at 1.445KBps/avg

AND, contracts state you CANNOT resell the service. You can host any damn website/server you want as long as it doesn't become a hacking site or a spam site that can get the network into trouble or you aren't selling the space. DSL lines you can do what ever your bandwidth can provide. They don't care.

384k is minimum for broadband as per the FCC. @home was in deep doo doo, up until 6 months ago because of false advertising. They did not follow this minimum and had their modems running at 128k upstream, but still advertised it as broadband. Plus their TOS did fairly much state that you have limited unlimited service. In that, basically, you can get cable modem service from them but you can't use it. They complained if you ever use more than 350mb's at one time. Basically you'd be better off using a dial up modem.

After a year of lawsuits and a firing of nearly all executives by Excite@home who now owns all @home providers, they have changed their policies to match more closely to Road Runner providers.

AT&T/Mediaone Road Runner has always been at 384k upstream and very fair about servers running on their network.

If your experiance was with the @home network I can understand where you are coming from as it was pretty bad a while ago. But now, because of the good ol' FCC things are a bit better over there. I am just glad I am with Road Runner though.

All I can say is that you have been extremely lucky to have lasted as long as you have. Your 207 GB over 30 days would require a line of 670 kbps running full out every second of every day of the month to reach that download amount. That is almost half of a T1 - 11 of the 23 B Channels. I don't think you can get one of those for $20 a month.

From the @Home Page.


http://www.home.com/qa.html#server

Can I attach a server to the network?

It basically in short says No :).


DSL providers vary but i'd say 80-90% of all Residential DSL lines do not allow the running of servers on their network.........


But anyhow were straying from the topic a bit... :)

Or at least, they aren't as rediculous as they used to be about it. You'd get called even if you ran a game server to play star craft once or twice.

Residential aDSL usually runs at 128kbps upstream. They state this most times. But they still don't care what you run on it because of the low upstream allotment.

Using the right connection can work if you have enough friends and the website isn't for selling more websites. Or the friend isn't selling the website hosting to you through the connection.

free and unlimited....how many times do you see that on the net? nothing is ever really free and certainly not unlimited.i think chicken is right when he says you need to look at dedicated hosting options.it's going to be the only viable long-term option.unless you want to keep relocating that is.
cheers
peterv

I am not trying to pull your leg, trust me. Since your site is getting so much of trafic it would be easier for you to find a sponsors for your web site. If you can find a suitable sponsor you would be able to afford your own dedicated server and additonal cost for extra bandwidth.

the first two are on ISPcheck Guaranteed
ISP Check has a history of labeling hosts known to be very unpopular as "guaranteed," currently including addr.com. Any host-recommending site accepting advertising from ***** should be viewed with great suspicion.

I wonder what addr pulls in per month. With that freakishly large amount of advertising they do they must make a fair bit'o'cash out of it.

Just imagine being able to site on your can in front of the TV all day ignoring support calls, watching the bank balance grow... :) Still word spreads so I hope he (they) are saving for the rainy day that's coming...

By the way, is everyone thinking what I'm thinking regarding 200gig a month for $20? Maybe time to look at putting a HUGE project into action.

Greg Moore

I wouldn't even waste your time signing up with APlusHosting. $20 for 200GB? Yeah right.

I think it's time to look into a dedicated server for you, I'm sure you could afford one with that many page views/transfer. :)

(Note: That's where he *was* hosted...)

Suggestion: Put a banner on your page to help cover your costs. 207 GB/month by one site does not fit into a shared hosting enviroment. Defenetly check out a dedicated server.

Yeah, You'll want a dedicated servers for that much data transfer - I'm absolutely astounded that your previous hosting company allowed you to use that much bandwidth. Other alternative is to try a hosting company which uses load-balancing across their servers and a huge 155mb/s kind of bandwidth - they might let you host a site like yours.

Maybe you could get a free dedicated server at freededicatedservers.com. Their site says this "service is available to sites receiving an average of 2000+ "page views" per day to their entire site. You will be required to place 1 sponsor banner per page on your site`s HTML pages within the first screen portion viewed by a visitor to the page."

Please note, I don't have anything to do with this company, I don't know anyone that has ever used them, I just happened to come across their site a couple of days ago and thought it might work for you.

My opinion on that is, that they aren't 'giving away free servers'. If your site has the potential of earning revenue, then you are better off getting your own server and putting your own ads on the pages and making the money yourself.

I've seen them. They come to boards all time promoting themselves. They register for mutliple user names and then talk amongst those user names saying how great the service is. IMHO, that's worse than false reviews on the rating sites (we all know how much they're worth).

I just wouldn't trust them with a site of importance and feel that if there's money to be made, the site owner should be the one to make it :)

Just wondering how servercentral is making any money by charging him $235

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=6224

Do keep us informed pmak1 :)

DJ

Originally posted by mysitehost
2 cable modems at 384kbps/avg
1 SDSL line at 1.445KBps/avg

AND, contracts state you CANNOT resell the service. You can host any damn website/server you want as long as it doesn't become a hacking site or a spam site that can get the network into trouble or you aren't selling the space. DSL lines you can do what ever your bandwidth can provide. They don't care.

384k is minimum for broadband as per the FCC. @home was in deep doo doo, up until 6 months ago because of false advertising. They did not follow this minimum and had their modems running at 128k upstream, but still advertised it as broadband. Plus their TOS did fairly much state that you have limited unlimited service. In that, basically, you can get cable modem service from them but you can't use it. They complained if you ever use more than 350mb's at one time. Basically you'd be better off using a dial up modem.

After a year of lawsuits and a firing of nearly all executives by Excite@home who now owns all @home providers, they have changed their policies to match more closely to Road Runner providers.

AT&T/Mediaone Road Runner has always been at 384k upstream and very fair about servers running on their network.

If your experiance was with the @home network I can understand where you are coming from as it was pretty bad a while ago. But now, because of the good ol' FCC things are a bit better over there. I am just glad I am with Road Runner though.



Dear Sir,

If you are using any AT&T Broadband service (Which includes AT&T Road Runner (Previously MediaOne Road Runner), and AT&T@Home, TCI@Home) for hosting a TLD then I would ask of you to provide me with your user name and/or your domain name via e-mail. I can be contacted at jefframbo@mediaone.net.

Sincerely,
Jeff Rambo

It's that simple. Now if you are going to give me the no servers pitch. I have heard it, and guess what? I am not reselling anything.


<-edit->
Also, if that sounded too harsh, or I got the wrong impression of what you were saying. Then obviously I don't want to talk, so even if you track me, don't contact me.

[Edited by mysitehost on 03-25-2001 at 05:21 PM]

I am not up for an arguement and crap like that today. Everyone believe what this guy says, I am not going to argue it.

Whatever

Originally posted by Jeff Rambo

Dear Sir,

If you are using any AT&T Broadband service (Which includes AT&T Road Runner (Previously MediaOne Road Runner), and AT&T@Home, TCI@Home) for hosting a TLD then I would ask of you to provide me with your user name and/or your domain name via e-mail. I can be contacted at jefframbo@mediaone.net.

Sincerely,
Jeff Rambo

:))

Originally posted by mysitehost
It's that simple. Now if you are going to give me the no servers pitch. I have heard it, and guess what? I am not reselling anything.

Umm, according to the terms on most DSL providers, and @Home, it clearly states NO SERVERS. It doesn't matter if you are reselling or hosting one file. The terms state that you can't run a server under any conditions. So just because you are not reselling something does not allow you to run a server.