I have a site going that requires quite a large space/bandwidth host which allows hotlinking/streaming. Currently it's sucking up around 1.3gb space and 50gb/mo, maybe a tad less than that. My budget is low, I've currently been working off free hosts which has been a huge pain.
So basically I need a cheap host with moderate allowances, uptime with a decent speed. But because technically it's just a filehost which allows hotlinking/streaming (maybe even hotlinking protection), I don't need the other jazz to be working.
I saw Brinkster (which doesn't allow streaming, so good thing I didn't buy that) and webhostingpad, which both seem to get terrible reviews here.
We looking for a solution for our website. We currently stream about 1.5 TB of videos a month and have about 100 gig of them. We will be opening up our site to allow user uploads, mean that will will also be needing to encode videos.
We are looking at Iwebs Power Servers.
2 x Xeon Quad Core 2.0Ghz
320GB SATA 2
8Gb Ram
10,000GB transfer a month
100mbps link
$240 a month.
We plan on updating the site to run .NET 3.5, this adds $70 month onto the price. Seems like good deal. Can anybody recommend anything better.
For an extra $200 we can upgrade to SCSI. How much will this improve the performance.
Most of our users are in the US and Australia, Iweb servers are located in Montreal Canada. How much will this effect the perfomace of our site.
I have read that some hosts have ffMpeg, Menecoder, FMS3 already installed can andybody point me into the direction of one of these
Uvault.com does flash streaming media, features unlimited connections, and redundant servers. Has been around for a while and is a Macromedia Alliance Partner but I can’t find any feedback on them anywhere.
First off about myself: I'm your typical knows-enough-to-get-by web design CMS flash type guy. Nothing special no real training but if I need to run a control panel I probably can.
What I need: I'm moving an AM station(oldies) to online streaming and need a host for it. The variable here is the only reason I'm moving the station is because a radio show on it which runs 1 hour every weekday needs to expand our audience and all that good stuff. We'll be expanding the show as far as we can hopefully within the next year and on certain days we'd have more listeners due to having higher profile guests on.
However, since we have the stream 3 other shows on the radio station have offered to pay for the costs(we had to get a cable line run to the station in the first place)- presumably they would have a lower listener rate.
The question is what's the best solution here? We don't want to pay for a 2000 slot shoutcast service right off the bat, but we also need one who can rapidly expand our slots as needed, or possibly have one which just charges based on use. When we get up to high volume would it be smarter for us to just lease an unmetered dedicated server (high assumption of 1000 listeners(which is months off) for 3 hours a day running at 128k bit-rate the bandwidth really starts to add up) or a dedicated server that just charges based on usage. The latter may even be cheaper than using the high-priced-slot-based shoutcast stream servers.
I figure someone out there has already done the research can might know an answer to the problem. The key here is flexibility- no point paying $90-300/month for a dedicated server the first month if we're only getting 200 listeners on our show and 50 for the other shows but if we somehow experience a surge in listeners we don't want to be stuck at a low cap.
Im working at time with ffserver ... i test ffmpeg with flash streaming and it works perfectly but i want to do anoter step.
Im trying to do a streaming of a file to watch that movie in Windows Media Player. The problem is that i have a lot of errors of "buffer underflow" when i stream the video.
I Post My Config:
Port 8090 BindAddress 0.0.0.0 MaxClients 1000 MaxBandwidth 10000 NoDaemon
I have been reading about Amazon S3's service at [url] and I was wondering if it would be wise to use their service for a file host (like rapidshare..) I may be starting?
How good is their bandwidth and what is their policy on copyrighted material?
Or should I buy my own servers from an unmetered provider, such as alphared?
I'm thinking about moving an account with one main domain and a bunch of addons from one cpanel host to another, using a whole site backup .tar.gz file. SSH does not appear to be an option at this point.
I just extracted the tar.gz to a local pc to get a look at what's in it. It has these 12 folders: bandwidth, cp, cron, dnszones, logs, meta, mysql, resellerconfig, userdata, va, vad, vf. Below these folders are also 14 unfoldered files, ranging from "addons" to "version."
So, will this work?
1. Does this mean the domains and all the addons will be set up with their original user names, passwords, and email accounts with all the same passwords, if I move everything to the right location? Will all the email accounts I've set up in my email client software work just as they do now with the current host?
2. How can I know where all these uploaded folders and files have to be moved once they're there?
3. Can I just upload the extracted contents to one location, or do I have to upload the unextracted tar.gz to a server, extract there, then move the contents wherever they need to be moved (but I don't know where things need to be moved now)?
I recently opened a shared hosting account with a new host.
Can someone advise on file/folder permissions I can set which will keep my shared host neighbors out?
While accessing my account via FTP I noticed I could freely view and download files from other users folders - their PHP, HTML, images, you name it!
I would like to be more private with my files which include PHP scripts, images, etc.
I already contacted the help desk with my host and the tech said shared access between accounts is normal (even FTP) and if I restricted permissions then my PHP wouldn't work for Internet users.
I'm not buying it. I should be able to set the permissions such that Internet users can execute the PHP and view images, without my account neighbors using FTP to download my files.
i want to build a fileshering web site, i know from the start that trafic to my site will be high becouse it is not a regular file host site and i belive that i will have a lot of downloads as service will be mostly free of charge.
from what i understand i will need massive servers or at least good servers with high data transfer speed , reliable up time , very big storage space and massive bandwith.
i understand that budget should be high for this and i am not cutting on budget, i thought on first starting low and then upgrading but the low point of this poject will still need to have the best i can find both in speed ,storage and bandwith.
can you reccomend what service or way i can use for this project?
what servers rapidshare use? megaupload? i know i am still at start but i want a clean start.
I am planning on starting a file/image uploading website using a custom script I wrote. I was wondering if anyone who has had experience with these kinds of sites before could give me some info on the bandwidth usage, disk space, ect. And what kind of package I would need. I was thinking of a VPS?
I recently received this messsage from in my mailbox "Unable to generate the web server configuration file on the host <nsxxxxxxx.ovh.net>" which is coming now every hour for 4 days now.
I first tried to regenerate an apache conf file with the magic on my Centos 6:
I did not put this under the tutorial section because it is not comprehensive enough. Its just a simple rant.
Those of you shopping for a host come to this forum, and are often given the advice to ask for a "test file" to download.
1) Hosts who offer test files will most likely put the file on their fastest server, not the server where your site will actually be hosted.
2) If they have servers in multiple data centers, they will use the one that is the most well-connected, not necessarily the one where your site is going to be.
3) Even if your account is assigned to the same server as the test file, what does your ability to download a static file actually prove? A test file does not show how well a server is going to perform, which is usually the biggest factor in page load times.
4) Barring all the above, and assuming your site is going to consist only of static files, most web site visitors are not all in the same area, so your results may differ from the rest of the people visiting your web site.
A test file can be helpful in rare circumstances, but as a potential customer you would have no way to really know whether your download is a true test of what you can expect, so it is best not to rely on something like that unless you are downloading it from your own hosting account with that host.
The only way to really know how a host is going to perform is to try it out. This is why hosts offer full money-back guarantees and free trials.
He says he called up the internet company and upgraded his monthly plan to 60 gig or downloading a month, because he loves watching steaming videos(not youtube) im talking about actual movies.
They told him if he downloaded a 700mb movie or if he watched the exact same movie it would use up 700mb
So according to them downloading or streaming uses the same mb.
I found this hard to believe. But i have no wa of proving it.
I am a non-technical business investor looking to find a consultant (ideally from the adult video industry, since they, if anyone, should be experts) who can help me address the problems a company is having with the video production and streaming/progressive process. In short, they film, keyout, and code online virtual spokespeople for thousands of clients and I am told that they have both progressive and streaming video--but it does not always play correctly. I realize there are limitations in the conenction of the end user, and that it may be also be affected by the hosting company--but I want someone who can ell me what this company is doing correctly, and where there are opportunities for improvement.
Im currently running a streaming media (video) site on a p4 3.0 GHz with 2 gigs of ram. I think its a 10mpbs unmetered port. It streams extremly slow, to the point where it lags every second. It does this even though their is only 6 people on, with loads of 200 it just freezes up. What configuration would be able to hold traffic of 200 people constantly. I was on a faster server with hostgator, their dedicated pro but i went through the bandwidth in 5 days.
I will be starting a website featuring my own videos. They will be all flash based. Now I will be having 1 main website, which will be very fast and with its own forums as well. I'll probably go with reliablesite.
Anyhow, what I want to do. Is host flv files on hosts such as dreamhosts, host monster, site5, webhostasp, eleven2, hostgator. As they have > 5TB hosting (yes I know they oversell, but even if I get 75% - its good).
So, if I have lost you, let me explain in more detail.
The page in the reliable host will have links (to 5 files, which the locations are randomised in order with each refresh)..
I've installed H264 Streaming Module for Apache 2 from: h**p://h264.code-shop.com/trac/wiki/Mod-H264-Streaming-Apache-Version2. Replace ** with tt
Loaded the mod in httpd.conf but my streaming of MP4 files don't improve at all. Other file types like: WMV & FLV at high bitrate or large filesize have no problem streaming. Only MP4 files are giving me problems when streaming through JW Flash Player.
I've made 2 test pages, read on:
1) h**p://x264-bb.com/vids/ >>> Replace ** with tt MP4 File hosted on a CDN server. This server hosting my MP4 file which works perfectly fine on any browsers anytime when visited, so this proves that my MP4 file has no problem to be streamed online.
2) h**p://x264-bb.com/vids2/ >>> Replace ** with tt The exact same MP4 File hosted on my server, giving me the headaches!
Problems facing are:
- can't load the streaming MP4 at all on IE7 - can't load on Firefox unless multiple times of refreshing if you get lucky - after working on Firefox, it stops working later - HTTP Pseudo Streaming is not working at all when it works on Firefox
