Would the best route be to colocate? Or an unmetered 10Mbs port? I am asking because I recently had my server pulled off of the BurstNet DC because I was doing bursts of 85Mbs+ multiple times, and thus want to know whether a 10Mbs is better or is that a BurstNet "feature"?
For file serving i'd reccomend getting a bunch of cheap 1200 GB SM boxes. You can throttle the bandwidth on them to stay within your limit and host a certain number of files evenly spread amongst the boxes. You dont need much resources, celerons will do fine. RAM may be an issue, i'd reccomend at least 1 GB.
thank you for your reply. I am operating on a budget of probably $250 a month max, so I guess two servers will be about all I can get. So a good CPU is really not all that important in file serving? I imagined it was so, but didn't know it for sure.
And, is there a way to get a file that is receiving a HUGE amount of hits to a place where it is easily accessable? I was serving one large(660MB) file when we got pulled off.
What DC would you recommend? I am using BurstNet right now, but am having trouble with them and thus wonder how those Ev1 servers are doing these days.
I would reccomend using a different httpd besides apache as well. Try thttpd, it's very light and ment for file serving under heavy loads. Here's a link: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/
And actually, you can buy 3 servers at $80/mo. each for a total of $240/mo. Or get 2 more powerful servers for a total of $250/mo. Good luck.
I think your best choice would be a celeron or an AMD. www.servermatrix.com offers some ideal plans. Low CPU is fine, like the celeron 1.7 would do perfectly fine if it runs thttpd. However, depending on how many simultaneous downloads you plan on having...you may need more than 512 MB RAM. Also if you have knowledge of BSD, i'd reccomend running freeBSD since it allocates RAM much better...