Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    93

    RACKForce::Bandwidth::1.5Mbps::equals 480 Gig???

    I was wondering what a realistic monthly bandwidth on a 1.5Mbps would be per month? The thing is since it's capped there my VPS won't be getting a sustained 1.5Mbps (and if it does it means somo of my customers would bbe getting lots of 404). So what's a nice average figure? Maybe something like 0.5Mbps on average per month? If so this would mean that it's 160 Gigs/Month, which is infact around what other VPS providers are offering. So a service that offers 200Gig/Month on a 10Mbps connection would indeed be much better than the Rackforce deal. Any RackForce customers care to comment?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    North Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    4,163
    Well 1mbit is around 300GB/month if fully maxed if you take off overheads.

    Dan
    █ Dan Kitchen | Technical Director | Razorblue
    █ ddi: (+44) (0)1748 900 680 | e: dkitchen@razorblue.com
    █ UK Intensive Managed Hosting, Clusters and Colocation.
    █ HP Servers, Cisco/Juniper Powered BGP Network (AS15692).

  3. #3
    was wondering what a realistic monthly bandwidth on a 1.5Mbps would be per month
    I think you have got a bit confused mate, i am with rackforce.. it may be different for you ..

    But 1.5Mb is the connection speed, and my montly transfer is Unmetered..


    Rackforce is great, the support isent instant, but its fast, they come back with very intelegent ansers and are a great company.. check out a customers site of minem running nice and smooth:
    http://www.ukpropertymanagement.co.uk

  4. #4
    For people who have a lot of continuous-stream data, or otherwise constant use, a fixed 1.5Mb line is decent. Frankly, if you are buying colo space, you'd be happy with an unmetered 1.5Mb line in many cases, given the price!

    However, for sites that have 'spikey' usage patterns, yes, 1.5Mb capped is certainly not 480G/mo, as there is some overhead, and you'll max your connection at certain times, be idle at others. Depends on usage -- obviously, if you are getting hit maybe half the day, you'll get/use < 200G/mo even if maxed out during those times.

    100GB is a lot of throughput for the average person... if you have serious spikes, and not an even flow, a 10/100Mb plan with pre-set throughput might work best for you. If you are trying to save money, many sites actually charge similar for 150GB throughput. But, the argument might be that because of the caps, RackForce might give more 'even' throughput so long as you aren't constantly maxing out the connection... Debateable...

    Sites generally offer unlimited or high limits as 90%+ of users don't get anywhere near the max throughput (which is how people are starting to offer 1000GB+ throughput maximums...).

    -d
    David Chait, Editor
    CHAITGEAR - Consumer electronics news and reviews

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    38
    I talked to a sales individual and I was told 1.5 mpbs is about 420 GB give or take.

    If you have their VPS server you can't upgrade anything related to space or connection unless you have a eFlex or ddsVenom server. This is what I was told.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,128
    Originally posted by gopper
    I think you have got a bit confused mate, i am with rackforce.. it may be different for you ..

    But 1.5Mb is the connection speed, and my montly transfer is Unmetered..


    Rackforce is great, the support isent instant, but its fast, they come back with very intelegent ansers and are a great company.. check out a customers site of minem running nice and smooth:
    http://www.ukpropertymanagement.co.uk
    You actually have it confused. It is NOT unlimited bandwidth. With 1.5mbps bandwidth, there is only a certain amount of bandwidth, which I believe is around 420GB.
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Including an RSS feed that you can syndicate!
    Daily Updated Web Hosting News Blog
    Unlimited vs. Unmetered bandwidth

  7. #7
    nope... its unmetered bandwidth, and a connection of 1.5mbps

    I have the log saved from a live convo..

    unlimited bandiwht dont egsist i dont beleave, its unmetered.

  8. #8
    Guys, you are saying the same thing. It's unmetered, but on a 1.5Mbps capped/limited line. But unmetered on 1.5M is a bit different than unmetered on a 100M line. Real world is < 400GB throughput, which is lower than many cos offer, and since you can't burst above 1.5, if you hit really heavy loads your connection can get 'clogged up'.

    The usefulness is when you might normally only get an offering from a co with like <50GB of throughput, don't have spikes, and really need like >100GB over a month.

    -d
    David Chait, Editor
    CHAITGEAR - Consumer electronics news and reviews

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cardboard box
    Posts
    1,023
    I'm not trying to put down plans with unmetered bandwidth. But I believe the most important question of the original poster remains unanswered. Spikes in monthly usage or not -- why exert a cap on yourself, when you can usually get a similar priced metered bandwidth-plan with, usually, a much higher cap?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    541
    Not Everyone requires a burstable connection. For those who do not a capped 1.5mbps is much better. This also ensures that people will not have to pay over usage fees if they use more than their average. Which may only be 200kbps.

    I will agree for some poeple bustable will save them

    Originally posted by dalechou
    I'm not trying to put down plans with unmetered bandwidth. But I believe the most important question of the original poster remains unanswered. Spikes in monthly usage or not -- why exert a cap on yourself, when you can usually get a similar priced metered bandwidth-plan with, usually, a much higher cap?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    93
    Originally posted by FatalSw1tch
    Not Everyone requires a burstable connection. For those who do not a capped 1.5mbps is much better. This also ensures that people will not have to pay over usage fees if they use more than their average. Which may only be 200kbps.

    I will agree for some poeple bustable will save them
    Well, what I was thinking was that perhaps not everyone requires non-bustable connections. A lot of sites would have connections that usually is high during the day (or night depending upon geography and what that site is running), that is every 24 hours they would be having a higher usage stats 12 hours out of that 24, therefore on average people would be using on half of the usable bandwidth (which is 0.75MBps). That would equal somewhere around 200Gig/Month, which is what most VPS offers.

    So what I am really interested in is to see usage/bandwidth stats from customers who does indeed seem to have thier connections hanging around 1.5Mbps 24/7 --- and yet never going up beyound that. If it does go beyound that it would mean that their customers would be facing 404s (even though "monthly" bandwidht is not used up). Debateable, right?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    8,935
    friendklay,

    I wouldn't think any 404's would appear - just that the sites would be slower than normal.

    Correct me if I'm wrong - they're not limiting # of apache connections or anything (as it is a VPS).

    Although I haven't personally tested a setup like the above.
    David
    Fused

  13. #13
    The traffic is rate limited to 1.5 mbps, not rate shaped. There is a difference.

    A rate shaping device will cache the traffic and make sure that nothing goes faster than 1.5 mbps. Rate limited traffic just drops all traffic that is above the prescribed limit. Rate limiting is a hardware packet drop so this does not necissarily mean that sessions will be lost but it does mean that there will be tcp retries.

    So, 404 errors won't happen. This is a network-level rate limit and as such, you will see reduced performance as your pipe becomes saturated.

    It actually takes quite a bit of traffic to saturate a 1.5mbps line.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    641
    The following are personal opinions:

    I find itís kind of misleading the way some companies capping the bandwidth advertise the theoretical value the user could get, because this would be based on a usage that I would suggest is far from typical. Same with the whole un-metered but rate limited, some people donít understand this and think they are getting more then they are. The motivation on the hostís part for doing rate limit/un-metered may be simply to avoid the need to track and manage actual transfer, rate limiting/capping is like set it and forget it. They might also be motivated to do this for assurance users cannot saturate their network further up if they have a small connection compared to the hosts connected.

    Personally I would prefer 300GB transfer on Burstable bandwidth instead of 1.5mbit un-metered, it keeps your options open as to when and how you use itÖ guess it all comes down to what the users need.
    Kevin

  15. Newsletters

    Subscribe Now & Get The WHT Quick Start Guide!

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

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