I know you get what you pay for with hosting, but with the ridiculous overselling going on I am finding it hard to work out how much bandwidth I can genuinely expect to get with about 500MB space and 99%+ (preferably more like 99.5%) uptime for $5/month.
I will be using all this bandwidth for hosting legal mp3s (sanctioned for promotional use by labels and artists), and would prefer the host to be based in the US or UK.
i looking for the servers (powerfull and cheap) i take this post in vps forum 2 day's ago but i understand that it is better for me to take the post in dedicated forum my friend's : 1-vpn server(with many ip)-->with high transfer + good performance(for start)
2-server for starting image hosting (with high or unlimited transfer + 100mbps )+atleast 50_60gb h.d.d
I'm at leaseweb atm - according to their graphs, I am doing around 17mbps 95th and paying $33/m USD for a C2D+1GB+160G HD. Overages are rather expensive though.
I have a dedicated server currently hosted over by Aplus.NET
I have a 3000 GB Monthly Transfer limit and we have been going over this limit for the past few months. This has resulted in a large sum of overage fees.
I am looking to go to another hosting company that is just as good as Aplus.NET, if not better... with a better traffic rate. A friend told me about Choopa.com and I wanted to know how good of a company they were. What are some other top reliable hosting companies with premium servers and that specialize in unmetered bandwidth?
I'm currently running a vBulletin message board with about 26,000 members. At any given time there are about 200 members actively posting.
Right now, we're on a dedicated server with Ilon hosting, however, my members are still complaining that the site runs VERY slowly when there are lots of members online.
To make matters worse, I want to launch a weekly podcast for them, so I'll need even MORE bandwidth.
GoDaddy.com is offering dedicated server accounts with high bandwidth limits (ie 2000 GB). Does anyone have any experience with them? ...
I run a video streaming site and currently buying 2 gigabits of premium bandwidth for it.
I have fair amount of visitors from countries from which I never do any income. I don't want to block this visitors but I'm looking into possibility of buying some cheap non-premium bandwidth for this purpose.
Is it realistic to find something less than (or equal) let's say $6k/gigabit with one gigabit (at first) commitment?
i find almost all vps offer hundreds of bandwidth per month, do you know any cheap vps offer big month bandwidth ? or 10M with unlimit bandwidth....etc.
A major part of web hosts are running linux these days, with congestion control mechanism 2.6 kernel and windows 2008 are now able to get full speed over higher latency even 200+, with the DSL an all major part of countries access to internet has been easy.
Now question is how exactly an expensive carrier such as MCI/ATT can make a difference for a website. expensive i mean by anything over $10 per mbit. Am sure for things like mission critical, financial institutions and for websites who need reach for every corner of 3rd world countries would need the best of the breed bandwidth. ok for the others who is always a regular guy or small business, is the expensive provider worth it? am trying to find out. please write your opinions on cheap/medium/expensive providers worthness of using such.
Internap is whole different as it will make a bandwidth mix superior which bgp can not do.
Simply put, bandwidth refers to how much data can be transferred at a time. Data transfer relates to how much data is actually being transferred. Think of it this way: If bandwidth were a bridge, then the bigger the bridge, the more vehicles can pass over it. Data transfer, on the other hand, can be compared to the number of vehicles allowed on the bridge in a given period of time.
and i access to my web host manager i see there view bandwidth usage link
so it shows usage in percentages....(increases as month passes...)
so if we go by defination, is it really bandwidth they are showing or is it data transfer they are showing to us...?
(bandwidth refers to how much data can be transferred at a time,so it is fixed ...means if 3gb is given ....then it cannot be said 80% of 3gb used.....here 3gb should mean any data higher than 3gb cannot pass ...though this site at an instance ...isn't that...)
And why is data transfer not so used term in webhosting if it that important ...means i have not seen many people saying 500gb datatransfer rather than saying 500gb bandwidth...(as it seems completely different from defination...)
From defination,data transfer seems to be more important than bandwidth...
Do you have a website or have you been involved in hosting a website for your company or some of your friends? Then you should have heard about the terms Bandwidth and Data transfer. Often there is confusion in understanding both these terms.
Bandwidth is the capacity of the network or the server that hosts the website, to send data at a moment. It is the amount of data sent per second from the server. This count more because, if there are many websites in the server and a million hits for the sites the server should be capable of sending that much of data at that moment. If the web server that you host your website has high bandwidth then the users visiting your site would see the pages quickly.
If you refer to the bandwidth there are two numbers separated by "/". The first number indicates the bandwidth that is allowed to send data and the second number indicates the bandwidth allowed to receive data. In most of the cases the bandwidth to send data is less than the bandwidth to receive data.
Data transfer is the amount of data that is sent by the server over a period of time.
For example the monthly data transfer allowed for a particular site might be 1GB. This means that the website account is allowed to transfer data from their website for only 1GB per month.
Consider that you have a page in your website that is of size 100kb. If this page is visited 100 times per month, then the data transfer added to your account would be 10 MB due to this page alone. Hence to minimize the data transfer it is always better to minimize the file size of the web page. This can be done in many ways.
You should know that a web page contains not only text but also media content such as images, sounds, videos, and downloadable files. When you create your web page you should keep in mind that you optimizing all these files so that the page loads quickly and the data transfer is kept at the minimum. That is why most of the photos related sites have thumbnail pictures so that they can reduce the data transfer due to the main page and the user is allowed to download the actual image only if they are interested in seeing that image.
While hosting a website with a service provider most of us tend to see only the features that are available for your hosting and the web space that is provided for your plan.
The cost to the web hosting company due to these are very less when compared to the cost due to data transfer.
If you know that you website is going to attract a lot of visitors to it, then you should go for an account or plan that has more data transfer per month. This would save you a lot of money. So the next time you purchase a web hosting plan keep an eye on the Data Transfer allowed for your plan.
I've a remote download site that uses tons of BW (about 900GB daily), and it uses sql connection quite alot - I've set it to max connection for my current server.
For now, I've the intention of separating main site with download server. where The main site will contains the sql DB. But my concern is, I want to buy a cheap VPS for the main site, but no idea if I need high BW and ram.
I host a podcast that's rapidly gaining popularity. At the moment, we push about 100gb/day of transfer for the episodes, but could easily double that in the next few months. I need a host that does at least 2tb a month with the ability to later upgrade to more. My operating budget is about 110$/month, but could go a little higher if needed.
Most of our activity is composed of sending files, so usage is pretty low. I'd probably only need a few gb to store the actual content (30mb mp3 files). It's also important that Adult material is allowed (the content of the audio podcast is explicit).
I'm aware of FDC and AT&T, but would like any other recommendations you guys could give.
I'm looking to get several dedicated servers, I don't require alot of processing speed or storage. And I'm not really picky about uptime, if the system is down for a few hours in a month its not a problem. What I need is alot of bandwidth. It needs to be quick and unlimited! What provider is going to give me the best deal?
The server is a media server, used to host heavy media files such as videos, flash and so forth. (there is no website on the server, just media files)
Everything works fine, all the media loads without a problem. Downloads are fast.
However, I have big trouble uploading stuffs. The FTP is either extremely slow or disconnects me.
I talked to my host, and they say the server is hitting 100Mbps bandwidth limit, and I should upgrade to 200Mbps. However, all my videos and media load fine, there are no problems except for the FTP.
Are there any solutions to this? I don't want to spend money on another 100Mbps just for FTP, especially when everything else is working without a glitch.
I have a client who has came to me for advice on his web site. I own a dedicated server and manage it using PLESK. I do pretty well managing it but I'm definitely not an expert on hosting by any means. So I need your help.
He is starting a new web site and he is going to do radio advertising on a lot of stations and expects to get a lot of hits. The web site seems to be pretty small with only a few pages of text and minimal pictures, so I don't think it will use that much just by the site being so small.
But anyway, I want him and me to feel comfortable that the site is not going to go down no matter how many hits he gets. How do I guesstimate this?
What are some good hosting companies that offer high bandwidth and protect you from overage charges -- or at least charge little for overages. I'm looking to spend less than $80/month. Also, do you have any idea: How many users will 10GB bandwidth cover if it's only a 5 page site with one picture on each page and 5 paragraphs of text just to get an idea.
I know someone is using the wget -r command on my server to recursively grab all files in a directory, I know their IP but I do not want to ban it completely, instead I was wondering is there a way to kill a connection if the bandwidth used by that connection gets too high?
today i got a message from a client asking about hosting his video himself, catch is, he has a shitload of viewers, im looking at servers in the range of quad core (maybe dual quad), 8gig, 4 hdd raid10, gige uplink, however the kicker, depending on how out of whack my estimates are, 100 to 400mbit SUSTAINED upstream (spiking all the way to max'n that 'little' gige pipe)
Has anyone got suggestions on who i should even consider for this? I'm a bit dumbfounded myself as i'v never even thought about a server on this much sustained bandwidth before today.
I'm picking up a client who is a video production company and hosts a lot of their work for their clients on the web. They have two sites right now for two different branches of what they do, but they are beginning to scale up a bit and want to switch from a local ISP hosting package to something more commercial. I like the idea of a VPS, but their current budget is rather low. Because of that, I am a bit attracted to hosting packages from site5 and dreamhost (both of which I've heard good and bad things about).
Ideally, I would be looking for a VPS along the lines of:
50-75GB disk space 256-512MB RAM 750GB-1TB Bandwidth Linux OS with Shell Access cPanel or Plesk Control panel
It'd be nice to keep their budget around $50/mo, but I know that might be asking a lot. They have two websites currently for their production needs. What would be the advantages of a VPS over multiple hosting accounts at Site5 ($7.50/mo) or Dreamhost ($6/mo)?
I'm looking at a project that would need to be located in Panama for server co-location.
It will be very bandwidth intensive, requiring 100 megabits to start and moving up from there. Going with a slightly more "value" oriented provider provided there's a backup (even lower bandwidth) available would be an option, as this application would tolerate limited periods of reduced bandwidth.
Can anybody point me in the direction of some data centers that might be worth looking at? Are there any bandwidth providers down there with a real value focus?
Right now, the best I've seen is $99/megabit from [url] I'm expecting bandwidth to cost more down in Panama, but I'd really like to push this number lower.
Like if you try to make your own server, it would cost a few thousand right? Or bought one from IBM or something. If you rent a server, it could cost you like double that I notice or even more in a period of a year.
I was looking at the prices of Xeon 5420 and they are like only 400 or something. Motherboard, ram, hdd's shouldn't amount to too much right?
And companies are charging like 50 bucks a month for a 2 gigs of ram.
Or am I actually looking at this wrong and actually am looking at desktop components? So is bandwidth the cost for these prices? In the long run aren't people being ripped off?
if I could get some input on this. Currently I'm running an Opteron 246, 2GB RAM with 2TB bandwidth/mo. I run a single site which is currently 99% HTML, along with an invision forum which is fairly popular. I get about 300-400k pageviews per day.
Right now the server is able to handle this stuff without much of a problem, and the average CPU load is between .5 and 3 (after a TON of tweaking!) - the only exception is when the forum db is being backed up/optimized, which isn't a huge problem since it happens during the off hours.
The problem is that I'm running out of bandwidth quickly, and need to come up with some kind of solution soon. My current provider offers bandwidth at $1/GB, which to me seems crazy compared to other providers, so that's not really an option.
I was thinking about switching to a more affordable provider and upgrading hardware, but I'm not sure what the best approach would be. I'm in the process of moving my HTML content over to a PHP-powered CMS, so I need to make sure whatever I do can handle that... What might be a decent setup for a site like mine which consumes a lot of bandwidth and will probably need more CPU power in the near future for PHP/MySQL stuff?
For the past few days, one of the server is causing a bandwidth utilization surge for the entire rack on almost daily basis. It happen for a few minutes and it went off then it will be the same thing again the next day. When the surge is happening, most of the servers on the same segment will be inaccessible for the few minutes.
The bandwidth utilization graph for my rack is recording an abnormal surge from (6mbps --> 90mbps) for the few minutes. My MRTG is showing 2 of the Plesk servers giving the problem but the NOC guys said it the Cpanel that causing the problem.
I tried logging in to both servers but could not find what's the cause for this.
I have a site that uses extreme amounts of bandwidth, I checked some of the popular companies like serverbeach and softlayer. Right now I'm leaning more towards serverbeach because they are cheaper, Are they a good company to go with? Let me know if you have any other recommendations.