Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Bandwidth v. Transfer

[Chestnut]

As I understand it, bandwidth is the amount of data one can transfer per time, similar to the concept of speed in our ordinary life. The unit is kb per second or M per second for ordinary dedicated servers users.

Transfer is the actual amount of data transfer, like the concept of distance in our ordinary life. The unit is GB for ordinary dedicated servers users.

Now, as I have read or heard:

Alabanza charges on transfer basis.
(Query: Does Alabanza impose a cap on bandwidth?)

Dialtoneinternet charges on bandwidth basis, and a particular kind of bandwidth basis - burstable bandwidth and hence the 95th percentile system.
(Problem: DI converts the figure to GB and hence confuses a lot of peaple.)

Catalog charges on transfer basis.
(Query: Does Catalog impose a cap on bandwidth?)

Tera-byte charges seperately for bandwidth and for transfer.
(Comment: personally I think this is a fairer method.)

VDI (according to DanielP) charges on average, not 95th percentile.
(Query: what is average? Is it the same as transfer?)

[DanielP]

Heya,

VDI Charges based on your MGTR traffic average.

To simplify it lets use 5 bandwidth checks at 30mins apart.

1) 200k/sec
2) 300k/sec
3) 600k/sec
4) 400k/sec
5) 100k/sec

Now, in simple math terms, to find the average of a group of numbers we add them up and divide by their number (5).

So 1600k/sec divided by 5 = a 320k/sec average data transfer rate. And that is what you would be charged for.

The above method is how most mgtr (the green graphs you see everywhere) gets its average transfer, and VDI uses that to charge for.

Hope that clarifies .

[DanielP]

Also,

"Tera-byte charges seperately for bandwidth and for transfer.
(Comment: personally I think this is a fairer method.) "


However, they use a limited speed line approach if I remember correctly.

To where say with their base package you get a max burstable like of 128kbps which if used 24/7 could generate about 40gig as listed on their site.

[Chestnut]

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that 128 Kbps bandwidth transferring at its peak 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 30 days a month will generate 324GB, which is calculated as follows:-

128Kbps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 30 days
=331,776,000Kb

1GB = 1000 MB = 1,024,000Kb

Therefore, 331,776,000Kb = 324GB

Tera-byte is putting a cap both on bandwidth and on data transfer.

It is fairer because if you have a spike, it will slow down your site but will not affect other customers of tera-byte. If you do not want to slow down your site, then upgrade to a higher plan with higher bandwidth and pay more. If you do not want to pay more, then bear with the occasional slow down of your site.

I am unrelated to tera-byte. I do not have a site or servers with tera-byte. Just my commonsense.

Also, I am commenting on the method of charging, not the actual figures charged by tera-byte.

[Chestnut]

The concept of xth percentile is not bad, but the choice of 95th is terribly bad, from the consumers' point of view, of course.

Most sites have a zigzag pattern of data transfer. The 95th percentile system of charging will tend to work against the customers. Will 75th percentile be fairer? It depends on statistical records to show which xth percentile is fairer. I do not know which figure is right, but I know 95th is bad.

From figures provided by DI users to this forum and scriptkeeper.com, the DI method will roughtly result in a potential data transfer figure which is about 3 times the actual data transfer figure. On that basis, the DI 65GB will be about 21.67GB of actual data transfer and the DI $3 per GB will work out to be $9 per GB for actual data transfer.

Take an analogy of an overdraft banking facility. If the bank grants you $10,000 OD, will it be fair if the bank charges you interest on the whole sum or 95th percentile of that sum if you actually utilize in full the $10,000 OD for 2 days of a month and other time you only use $3,400 of that OD. Doesn't it be fairer if the bank charges you an annual set-up fee for making the OD facility available to you and then charges you on a daily basis on the actual OD utilized by you?



[Edited by Chestnut on 09-15-2000 at 10:07 AM]

[JTY]

Chestnut, 128Kbps comes out to 40.5GB.

You have to remember that bandwidth is measured in bits and transfer in bytes.

[Chestnut]

Thank you, JTY.

I admit my mistake on this bit and byte point.

So, DanielP is right that 128Kbps will generate about 40.5GB of actual data transfer if the line is used at its peak 24x7x30.

Also, tera-byte is charging on a capped line, not separately on a capped line and on the amount of data transferred.

I understood the table of tera-byte wrongly and I withdraw my comment on tera-byte's charging method.