Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1

    Need 100GB+ bandwidth /month.

    Any suggestions? At what point should I upgrade to a dedicated server?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,974
    VPS should be fine for your needs. Are you looking for shared / reseller hosting?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    2,168

  4. #4
    I'm not sure how resource intensive my website is.

    The website in question is http://www.photodump.com . Not much MySQL but GD is used to manage images.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Above The Clouds
    Posts
    6,999
    I often see people requesting 100gb plans for $20-$30 in the HostQuote section and there are hosts that will willingly offer such a service (for a few months anyway). I have been trying to educate people with the following logic:

    Any reputable host will tell you that a server needs to turnover at least $1000/mo or it's a liability. Looking at $250 for the server, $500 for staff, $250 for the company (bills and taxes). Think about having 10 servers, maybe the host owner and 2 staff and $5000 to split between at worst.

    Now a dual xeon will pull 1000gb of traffic in a month so if you have 10 accounts using 100gb, you're maxed out. Let's say you count on overselling a bit and put 20 accounts on that server. Four use 400gb and six use half their allowance - 300gb, totalling 700gb. The other 10 only have to use one third of their transfer and the server is maxing out.

    If you have 20 accounts, you'd better be charging $50/mo or you're in trouble in a few months. So what are the $20 for 100gb hosts doing exactly? Are they putting 50 such accounts on a server? I would say they almost certainly are.

    But remember that on such a plan, people really intend to use alot even if not right away. After a few months the host starts to scamble around, lightening the load on the server probably until they have 2 servers where they want one. Less profit, more work and the cycle continues.

    Such hosts have a business model built on HOPE. Same can be said for the $7.95 for 50gb hosts - not as severe because people are mainly attracted to the possibility and may not ever use anywhere near 50gb - but it's still a business model built on HOPE (unless you get bandwidth cheap ala hosts with their own pipes/DC). It might take a while longer for all the shuffling to stabilise servers when the bandwidth starts chugging but it will happen and only the host with the DC can afford less accounts per server.

    Anyway, ramble is almost complete. What I'm trying to say is that if you need 100gb transfer and expect to use it, make sure you're on a semi-dedicated service at least. Ask how many accounts go on a server and do the math.
    Laurence Flynn @ atOmicVPS LTD
    Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting Solutions Powered by OnApp
    Fully Managed [Shared][Reseller][Cloud VPS] [Dedicated]
    Featuring the atOmicSTACK ● Speed ● Performance ● Reliability

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Always, always listen the advice of "The Hosting Don".

    Nice work Laurence! Kudos! Bravo!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,974
    Well said! I saw his request as well and found the budget to be extremely low.

    You might need to bring up your budget in order to get up-to-par service, else you would end up requesting for hosting on and on and as a result, you have wasted all your time and $$ instead of saving any of those.

    Anyhow, I wish you best of luck with your search and hope you get a good host that are willingly to host you at that rate.

  8. #8
    Good post. I'm going to look into raising my budget until I am ready for semi-dedicated.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    269
    Originally posted by NexDog
    I often see people requesting 100gb plans for $20-$30 in the HostQuote section and there are hosts that will willingly offer such a service (for a few months anyway). I have been trying to educate people with the following logic:

    Any reputable host will tell you that a server needs to turnover at least $1000/mo or it's a liability. Looking at $250 for the server, $500 for staff, $250 for the company (bills and taxes). Think about having 10 servers, maybe the host owner and 2 staff and $5000 to split between at worst.

    Now a dual xeon will pull 1000gb of traffic in a month so if you have 10 accounts using 100gb, you're maxed out. Let's say you count on overselling a bit and put 20 accounts on that server. Four use 400gb and six use half their allowance - 300gb, totalling 700gb. The other 10 only have to use one third of their transfer and the server is maxing out.

    If you have 20 accounts, you'd better be charging $50/mo or you're in trouble in a few months. So what are the $20 for 100gb hosts doing exactly? Are they putting 50 such accounts on a server? I would say they almost certainly are.

    But remember that on such a plan, people really intend to use alot even if not right away. After a few months the host starts to scamble around, lightening the load on the server probably until they have 2 servers where they want one. Less profit, more work and the cycle continues.

    Such hosts have a business model built on HOPE. Same can be said for the $7.95 for 50gb hosts - not as severe because people are mainly attracted to the possibility and may not ever use anywhere near 50gb - but it's still a business model built on HOPE (unless you get bandwidth cheap ala hosts with their own pipes/DC). It might take a while longer for all the shuffling to stabilise servers when the bandwidth starts chugging but it will happen and only the host with the DC can afford less accounts per server.

    Anyway, ramble is almost complete. What I'm trying to say is that if you need 100gb transfer and expect to use it, make sure you're on a semi-dedicated service at least. Ask how many accounts go on a server and do the math.
    Exactly my thoughts! Can you read my mind?
    Exactly what I would have said ( though probably not in as good and detailed format )
    Maker of World's BEST Browser & Web site development software.
    Shared / Reseller / Dedicated *Managed* Web hosting on Linux / Windows with 99.5% Uptime Guarantee with SLA & 90 days moneyback guarantee.
    Contact -> AIM: str1997 | ICQ: 303026849

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Above The Clouds
    Posts
    6,999
    It was my soapbox post for the day. I'm back to posting useless nonsense now.
    Last edited by NexDog; 03-18-2004 at 11:28 AM.
    Laurence Flynn @ atOmicVPS LTD
    Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting Solutions Powered by OnApp
    Fully Managed [Shared][Reseller][Cloud VPS] [Dedicated]
    Featuring the atOmicSTACK ● Speed ● Performance ● Reliability

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    712
    a vps would be better. Try dinix or vpscolo.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    1,679
    Originally posted by NexDog
    Now a dual xeon will pull 1000gb of traffic in a month so if you have 10 accounts using 100gb, you're maxed out.
    The problem with this logic is that you're thinking with a dedicated server mindset. A dual Xeon should be able to happily push 5Mbit as long as its processors and RAM aren't overloaded. (In fact, it can happily push 100Mbit or more if it's a file server; I'm just identifying with your "typical web hosting" story and not expecting special-case uses.)

    My point is that if you buy the dual Xeon server and colocate it, there is no artificial "1000GB" limit. It's limited only by a) how much you want to pay for bandwidth and b) processor/memory/hard drive space.

    If you're going to offer cheap hosting (not in the realm of this company, but cheap-ish), it will be far more beneficial in the long run to colocate several boxes and get billed on 95th percentile vs. paying $250/month for a dual Xeon (your numbers) and limiting yourself by how much bandwidth your provider allocates you.

    FYI, one of our virtual hosting servers hosts around 600 domains rather smoothly. I paid $1100 up front for the server (P4/2.66GHz; 2GB RAM; 2x120GB 8MB cache drives), but my ongoing bandwidth/rackspace costs are under $100/month. When you look at it that way, there's no question that colocation is more cost-effective should you want to offer cheaper hosting.
    Last edited by ericabiz; 03-18-2004 at 09:19 PM.
    Erica Douglass, Founder, Simpli Hosting, Inc.
    I founded Simpli Hosting, and sold it in 2007 to Silicon Valley Web Hosting after over 6 years in the business.
    Now I'm blogging at erica.biz!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Above The Clouds
    Posts
    6,999
    Originally posted by Simpli-Erica
    The problem with this logic is that you're thinking with a dedicated server mindset. A dual Xeon should be able to happily push 5Mbit as long as its processors and RAM aren't overloaded. (In fact, it can happily push 100Mbit or more if it's a file server; I'm just identifying with your "typical web hosting" story and not expecting special-case uses.)
    A typical server is doing a lot. It processes alot of server side scripting, powers possibly hundreds of databases, will have a busy email service with spam and AV daemons and maybe python running Mailman. When you pile all this on top of heavy traffic, most production servers do have a limit.

    But I definitely agree with you on the cost-effectiveness of colocation.
    Laurence Flynn @ atOmicVPS LTD
    Linux & Windows Cloud Hosting Solutions Powered by OnApp
    Fully Managed [Shared][Reseller][Cloud VPS] [Dedicated]
    Featuring the atOmicSTACK ● Speed ● Performance ● Reliability

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •