Over at terabyte, it would cost me at least $775 a month for 300GB of bandwidth. But if I spread the load over 3 RAQs at 4WebSpace, it would only cost $300.

My question is, can I do this? Is there any good reason not to?

the ones on the tera-byte site are different specs to the ones on 4webspace.com but they dont have rules about having more than 1 server.

All I need to do is display pure HTML pages, so I don't need the extras. And given that there's only a one-off fee for the memory upgrade, the 4WebSpace deal sounds perfect :)

But I'm still concerned. 4WebSpace would surely make a loss on this... They can't buy bandwidth at $1 a gigabyte, right? And given this scenario, would they not just look for any excuse to terminate my account?

And what if I expanded further? Where would the line be draw?

Because people like me have the same deal yet push 2 MB/mo. :)

Now, isn't that the same philosophy as the millions of "unlimited" offers out there? They say they don't mind sites that do x amount of GB a month, because the vast majority do not... But when it comes down to it, they really *do* mind.

I've been with hosts that offer more than they can provide before, and I'm in no rush to repeat such experiences again... That said, the 4WebSpace offer is too good to resist ;)

Any happy 4WebSpace customers out there running several RAQs at max bandwidth?

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:29:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Philip Mak <pmak@aaanime.net>
To: Brenda Gunther via RT <support@tera-byte.com>
Subject: Re: [queue #94392] (support) 200 GB site

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Brenda Gunther via RT wrote:

> The overage charge is actually $3.00USD /GB over the firts 100GB used. It is
> monitored on a per server basis.
> Brenda

Would it be allowed then if I signed up for 2 or 3 servers with you, set
my DNS to do round-robin load balancing among them, and used less than 100
GB on each? Or would this be considered "cheating"?

-Philip Mak (pmak@aaanime.net)

From: Mike Parie via RT <support@tera-byte.com>
To: pmak@aaanime.net
Subject: [queue #94392] (support) 200 GB site

that would be considered "cheating"

Thanks

Thanks pmak0. One of these days I will learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch :(

Originally posted by jam spoon
Thanks pmak0. One of these days I will learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch :(

Well, right now I'm putting out 200 GB per month on a $235 virtual server plan (800 MB disk space, unlimited bandwidth, access to configuration files) from servercentral.net. They use Verio's network, which is one of the best in the US.

Almost two weeks and no problems so far.

I was on a similar plan myself at one point (although not unlimited). It was great for a week or so, but I then found that there wasn't enough CPU power to go around. This, in turn, restricted the amount of bandwidth I could push.

Hope things work out better for you at servercentral.net :)

[Edited by jam spoon on 03-04-2001 at 07:23 PM]

At ServerCentral, I'm limited to 40 concurrent Apache child processes, and 96 total processes.

By putting the lines

SendBufferSize 524288
KeepAlive Off

into httpd.conf, this makes the child processes get freed up faster.

I can also run thttpd on a high port, and thttpd doesn't fork so it doesn't use up the process limit.

Originally posted by jam spoon
Now, isn't that the same philosophy as the millions of "unlimited" offers out there? They say they don't mind sites that do x amount of GB a month, because the vast majority do not... But when it comes down to it, they really *do* mind.

Similar but with one *big* difference:

Can the host provide you with 100 gigs of transfer? Yep.
Can the host provide youu with 'unlimited' transfer? Nope.

One is at least possible :) Also, at least you have a set limit that they must hold up to. With dedicated servers, there aren't as many hidden resrictions (or not hidden even), such as CPU resources, etc., that a host can use to halt a high bandwidth site (in this case, server).

Dedicated servers are in a different league to virtual/unlimited offers, for sure. That's why I'm here in the dedicated forum :)

Now that I know 4WebSpace don't allow more than one server to host a large site, I can see how the numbers game would work for them.

[Edited by jam spoon on 03-05-2001 at 02:15 PM]

If you just need 250 GB a month, you could get one RaQ from 4webspace.com and the other RaQ from rackshack.net.

4webspace.com:
$0 setup
$100 monthly
100 GB ($3/GB overage)

rackshack.net:
$250 setup
$100 monthly
150 GB ($3.5/GB overage)

The site I have in mind actually does quite a bit more than that, unfortunately :(

I didn't like the sound of RackShacks AUP either, which strikes me as being overly restrictive. Also, there appears to be just one AUP for both virtual and dedicated offers. I assume that the section on "Network Performance" doesn't apply to dedicated accounts. If in fact it does, that would seriously worry me.