monthly cost per GB for the host ? Speed? bad hosts?
Hi, please could you tell me the mean monthly cost per GB for the host and its relashionship with transfer rate and response time? Is there any formula to calculate the overselling rate? I would also appreciate some tips related to CPU usage.
I read here 1 GB is about $0.8 a month with no profit for the host. I tested some websites hosted by a high ranked host (according to WHM and customers) and saw mean response times measured from servers all around the world being as high as 20.2 seconds.
That, compared with a host with very bad reputation here and everywhere and whose ranking is going down very fast is strange. One "bad host" customer's website shows response times as low as 0.0. (I know for sure it is not biased). Both hosts are in the USA
According to monthly rate for GB and no profit both hosts oversell a lot, but response time is a lot better for the "bad host"
I know rankings are not very credible, but what surprises me is the contrast among them: Both overselling, one with excellent reputation even here but with very high response times. The other with very bad reputation all around the world and going down fast, but with excellent response times. Up time seems better for the "bad host", too
There is no formula for good or bad hosts depending on cost per gb especially because cost per GB varies. There are a lot of different type of bandwidth you can get, you can buy Tier 2 and Tier 3 bandwidth very very cheap compared to tier 1 bandwidth. Tier 1 bandwidth is more reliable and MUCH quicker in terms of response times. Its considered to be "the cream of the crop".
To determine overselling use common sense. If a host is providing 1000gb of bandwidth and 100gb of disk space for $10, obviously thats overselling. Anything over 150GB - 200GB of bandwidth and 10GB of disk space for $10 or under you can probably consider overselling. But I will tell you this much, most hosts oversell to some level, as long as its not too high, and it can be controlled, its not a bad thing. The way you find a good host is by getting proof of uptime, check how fast support responds, if the support answers your question in detail, test file to check download speeds, and lots of other things you probably already have read on this board.
The way I see it, if it's way too good to be true - it probbably is.
Simpli Networks, LLC :: http://www.simplinetworks.com :: Proudly 100% Owned.
Providing Affordable Managed Cloud/VPS Servers & Server Management Solutions.
We offer REAL 24x7x365 in-house support - proudly serving our customers since 2005!
Want to learn more? Give us a call - +1 (844) 4SIMPLI or email sales[@]simplinetworks.com today!
"over-selling", "You get what you paid for", and so on are just over-generalized
stock bashing attempts, in many cases.
Not very helpful for the readers (nor for the posters).
Bad reputation doesn't mean that the host does everything wrong.
On the contrary, even a host I don't consider honest nor competent may do
very good job in many areas.
As there are many components in web hosting services, such as simple web server part, CGI (or script execution), DataBase server (often MySQL, these days),
DNS, mail, FTP, customer services, and so on, you really need to measure each
elements one by one to compare.
Vague expression like "good host, bad host" doesn't mean a lot, for me.
It just show that someone "likes it or not".
And the testing must be done repeatedly for over certain period of the time.
If not, you can sample unusually busy/light traffic on the server and form wrong opinions.
As mosts hosts has many servers/clusters, the test must be done to at least some of them.
Usually servers with new clients are the lightest as they are often not yet fully populated.
But they will get full, with abusers and newbies running all the heavy slow apps soon to be cracked and exploited for spamming and further attacks, one day.
So called "good host" may do relatively good job in controlling the situation, while "bad host" may not even bother about doing something unless users complain a lot.
Evaluating a host isn't necessarily very easy task, and not so many people
really bother to compare, I guess.
Many of posters here are selling there own hosting packages or trying to get
affiliate money from hosts.
So, you can notice strong bias in many posts, naturally.
Then, there are users who went through bad experience with a host
and become determined (and sometime long lasting) critic after that.
Currently I have a few DreamHost and PowWeb accounts, and both were having
some troubles of different natures.
In case of PowWeb, they went through badly managed/planned merger
and many people have left (including one of my site).
I now consider them not very honest (to be very polite).
Yet, they still do many things right, and their plan can be enough for certain use.
So, it all depends on what you really need and what hosts have to offer, IMO.
If they match, you've found a solution.
If not, I'd suggest keep looking or revising your requirements/evaluation criterias.