hi all

i'm still searching for a host, who offers me more or less 500mb space and >500GB traffic....

thanks for any comment :)

try posting in the request forum but if you are looking for 500 GB then get yourself dedicated server or be ready to pay 300-400 $ for a managed account.

500GB on a shared account? :erm:

500GB what are you nuts?!:eek: Why do you need that much bandwidth?!:cartman:

try looking for company which says to give you "unlimited" bandwidth .. i don't think there's any company specifically give you 500gb and above bandwidth..or perhaps just get a dedi?

Originally posted by khimhong
try looking for company which says to give you "unlimited" bandwidth .. i don't think there's any company specifically give you 500gb and above bandwidth..or perhaps just get a dedi?

Companies that claim to offer "unlimited" bw will have a daily BW max hidden in the fine print and they'll boot you if you exceed it and it's usally a low amount. I don't think true "unlmited" BW is for real.

Yeah, um....good luck finding a host ;)

Go for dedicated...but i must ask you one question... WHY SO MUCH LOL!! thats alot of bandwidth..i got like 300gb on my dedicated server and i dont even use but maybe 100gb of it lol and i dont plan ever on using more than that. lol.

Originally posted by arpmn


Companies that claim to offer "unlimited" bw will have a daily BW max hidden in the fine print and they'll boot you if you exceed it and it's usally a low amount. I don't think true "unlmited" BW is for real.

yeah...that's why i " " the word unlimited.
I used to have a webhost who claims to provide unlimi. bw.
In the end, when i just used about 1 gig, i was issued a warning letter. heh..do they call it unlimited bw ? ( i will not name this company )

Anyway, getting 100gb of bandwidth is actually MORE than enough, IMHO. Basically, may I ask, out of curiosity, why do you need so much bw?

http://rackshack.net

Probably your cheapest bet for a dedicated box. No host will put you on a shared server.

you can try this host with there gold plan should satisfy your 500 mb and 500GB of bw here (http://www.internetwebsitehost.com/compare.htm)

Oh please, give me a break. 500 GB transfer and 10 GB space for $49.95. These scam artists really piss me off. :angry:

its up 2 u to trust e company

Id try serveroutsource.net. You could probably pick up a dedicated server between 100 - 200 dollars which would almost cover the 500Gb needed with a fee/month of maybe $30/Month extra for the extra transfer used.

As for people asking why he would need 500Gb/Month. I dont see a problem with using that amount of traffic... some web sites are busier then others... so the ones who transfer 100Gb and think that nobody can transfer more then maybe his site is just 5 times busier. I dont think we should question why he needs 500Gb/Month. It's just obviously a busy site. It happens!!!

hmm, ok.

why 500GB? i've got a searchmachine for magiccards (http://www.wizards.com/magic: not my site, but there are some infos for those who are interested ;) ) and each pic is 40kb....and there are about 5 pics on a page...50000 hits a day....so......but i dont need any resources, the database & php is on another server....just need bw ;)


i thought i'll need a dedicated....but, i dont know it isnt cheap :/ and i'm a student :/

Oh please, give me a break. 500 GB transfer and 10 GB space for $49.95. These scam artists really piss me off.

link?

Or you go for a few servers with cheap plans and distribute the data. Setup the DNS so that images1.yousite.com, images2.yoursite.com etc. are different machines. Don't distribute part of your site, but actually just rsync an entire mirror of your site to the other machines, and just change your scripts to cycle between the machines that are hit. Or you could use round robin DNS on the images machines, and have multiple A records for images.yoursite.com. But there's the hastle factor, and it may work out more expensive than a dedicated server. Rackshack claim 400G/month allowance

Originally posted by phpa
[B]Or you go for a few servers with cheap plans and distribute the data. Setup the DNS so that images1.yousite.com, images2.yoursite.com etc. are different machines. /B]


thats a nice idea.....the images never change, so thats nice, i have to find 5 times 100mb and about 100gb transfer...thats cool :)

Unless you need to keep the main infrastructure on one machine for simplicity or technical reasons, such as session data, updated files with state data etc., another variation would simply be to use round robin dns on the entire site, If you try pinging yahoo.com a few times you can see how the technique cycles between a couple of different IP's. If picking hosts programatically, you could also maintain an estimate of the amount of data served, and factor that into your decision about which hosts to use. If one host looks like it's exceeding its limit, then drop it from the available pool for that month. If all exceed, select the one with the cheapest plan for additional bandwidth. If one host is cheap but turns out to be crap, then just drop it from the pool forever and cancel.

its like i said, all the scripts are on the server where my domain name ist. i just need some "imageservers", they dont need to have php or mysql or anything else....

so you are the owner of wizards.com?

Or you save yourself a lot of money by compressing your images.
I have had the same problems on my site, so that's why I started taking the image compression serious.

I have done 2 samples picked from your site, and attached them in this zip file. Just look at the difference in size. They are almost 1/2 to 1/3 of what you use now. And the loss of quality is hardly noticeable.

And you will probably gain even more on the larger images.

so you are the owner of wizards.com?

hu? no, i'm not!



Or you save yourself a lot of money by compressing your images.
I have had the same problems on my site, so that's why I started taking the image compression serious.

I have done 2 samples picked from your site, and attached them in this zip file. Just look at the difference in size. They are almost 1/2 to 1/3 of what you use now. And the loss of quality is hardly noticeable.

And you will probably gain even more on the larger images.

i'll try, thats an idea...thanks for examples

http://srs1.stura.htw-dresden.de/~roth/cards/7E/Birds%20of%20Paradise.full.jpg
i've got about 10000 of scans like the one above. but i'll try, png would be an idea too...but the quality of the scans is the main reason why people come to my page.

Or you save yourself a lot of money by compressing your images.

The images are jpg's and so already compressed with lossy compression, but what you can do is compress them, as Mattie did, with a higher compression ratio, and hence more image loss. It's a good idea. Your site will load faster, and your server load may even go down as each server process can dispose of its request quicker.

It looks like Mattie used a quite aggressive quality, but for example:

convert -quality 25 banthaherd.jpg banthaherd-compressed.jpg

reduces from 26198 to 9404, and the other file reduces from 33184 to 12516, but a good saving and even with a low quality of 25 they looked good still.

PNG is not a good idea. It's not a lossy compression and the files will be huge. GIF and PNG are best for computer generated images (except photo realistic images) where there are large blocks of the same colour.
JPG is best for realworld images.

The images are jpg's and so already compressed with lossy compression, but what you can do is compress them, as Mattie did, with a higher compression ratio, and hence more image loss.


hmm, i tryed 30, maybe this is ok, have to ask some people :)

Just test what is a good overall compression ratio for your preference. You will notice that most images can be decreased in size without noticable degrading.

You can use Paintshop Pro to batch convert jpeg images.