Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Free file hosting site on Dreamhost, Bluehost, etc. (cheap shared hosting)?

[mrcooper]

I'm wondering how well a free file sharing site like sendspace.com would do on a shared hosting plan from Dreamhost.com, Bluehost.com, or similar hosts with cheap shared hosting that come with loads of storage and bandwidth.

How fast would users be able to upload and download files? If they wouldn't work well, do you have any suggestions for the most cost efficient way to host a free file hosting site?

Thanks!

[nwmo]

Read the TOS and AUP you will see they will not do well at all.

[tsj5j]

Once your site gets more visitors (20 per day), they'll probably suspend you.

For such a cheap price, you're dream(Host)ing.

[mrcooper]

Ok, thanks. So shared hosting like that is out of the question. I've thought about Amazon S3, but it just seems too expensive.

What service/site is a good one to start out with for this kind of project (needs to have Ruby on Rails service), that I will be able to scale with if I grow (i.e. upgrade)?

[40sixty]

Originally Posted by tsj5j

Once your site gets more visitors (20 per day), they'll probably suspend you.

For such a cheap price, you're dream(Host)ing.

Oh really?
Well, I think dreamhost made a mistake with my blog (sql/php powered) when it has over 2k uniqe hits a day and it's still not shut down.

I suggest you actaully use a host before you bash them.
k? spreading bad advice is kind of bad...

[RossH]

Originally Posted by mrcooper

Ok, thanks. So shared hosting like that is out of the question. I've thought about Amazon S3, but it just seems too expensive.

What service/site is a good one to start out with for this kind of project (needs to have Ruby on Rails service), that I will be able to scale with if I grow (i.e. upgrade)?

Sorry i don't think any shared hosting service will work for this type of service you will need to go to a VPS or dedicated server....

[nwmo]

The problem you are going to have will be with the files users upload and download. You will most likely get a few warnings then a TOS termination.

[Greedisgood]

You need a dedi.

Shared services won't fit this.

[Solid-Ice]

i dont think any shared host will allow you, or the price would be higher as a dedicated server

[tsj5j]

Originally Posted by martint

Oh really?
Well, I think dreamhost made a mistake with my blog (sql/php powered) when it has over 2k uniqe hits a day and it's still not shut down.

I suggest you actaully use a host before you bash them.
k? spreading bad advice is kind of bad...

Yes really.
Blog visitors and file hosting visitors are entirely different.
For one, blog visitors probably don't use more than 5MB of traffic each (assuming no flash).

However, filehosting sites may be serving up to 100MB or 1GB per visitor.
That's no small amount of bandwidth.

Secondly, a blog doesn't take up much space (like duh).
However, a filehost has files uploaded to it, and space restrictions are pretty much useless since archives can be split.
Let's say each user uploads 100MB files = 2GB files daily.

At this rate, DreamHost wouldn't be letting you stay.
I think its of general opinion that this is not feasible, if not foolish.

[generic007]

Originally Posted by tsj5j

However, filehosting sites may be serving up to 100MB or 1GB per visitor.
That's no small amount of bandwidth.

Secondly, a blog doesn't take up much space (like duh).
However, a filehost has files uploaded to it, and space restrictions are pretty much useless since archives can be split.
Let's say each user uploads 100MB files = 2GB files daily.

Dude, you are way off. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain that Dreamhost doesn't let you hit the space and bandwidth requirements. The issues that people tend to have is CPU and RAM resource usage, which is way low when you are dealing with static upload and downloads. You could likely up your example by a factor of 40x or 50x and be OK with disk and bandwidth as long as you aren't using a CPU intensive app to deliver the content.

[HostRefugee-Vince]

Originally Posted by generic007

Dude, you are way off. I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain that Dreamhost doesn't let you hit the space and bandwidth requirements. The issues that people tend to have is CPU and RAM resource usage, which is way low when you are dealing with static upload and downloads. You could likely up your example by a factor of 40x or 50x and be OK with disk and bandwidth as long as you aren't using a CPU intensive app to deliver the content.

File Hosting sites generally have Dynamic Uploading (through a PHP Script). Often times they also have Dynamic Downloading (to hide the true path to the file).

Some PHP Upload scripts are quite CPU Intensive and I assume php download scripts would add more overhead than a static download.

The people here saying File Hosting sites are not suitable in a shared environment are correct. It doesn't matter how much space and bandwidth the host claims to offer.

For future reference:
Static Upload - FTP (You can't statically upload through HTTP)
Static Download - Direct http link (no script proccessing the download) or FTP.

[Hostzio]

Originally Posted by HostRefugee-Vince

File Hosting sites generally have Dynamic Uploading (through a PHP Script). Often times they also have Dynamic Downloading (to hide the true path to the file).

Some PHP Upload scripts are quite CPU Intensive and I assume php download scripts would add more overhead than a static download.

The people here saying File Hosting sites are not suitable in a shared environment are correct. It doesn't matter how much space and bandwidth the host claims to offer.

For future reference:
Static Upload - FTP (You can't statically upload through HTTP)
Static Download - Direct http link (no script proccessing the download) or FTP.

Very true, scripts like torrentflux been a problem, and still is a big problem! If you plan to do any type of file hosting get a VPS or Dedicated server.