I have a website that is approx 50GB, that I essentially would like to take offline for a while. Obviously, while the site is offline, I don't want to be paying for my server.
Can anyone let me know of some options to "store" this mammoth of a site. Downloading it locally is not an option, so it needs to stay in the cloud for the lowest possible price.
Our congregation needs webspace to archive mp3 and mp4 files of the weekly messages. Low mp3 is about 3 MB size. High mp3 is about 20 MB size. mp4 video is about 325 MB size. We would provide links to the files so they could be downloaded - no online streaming is needed. Also no normal website stuff - just file storage space and ability to download by anyone who has the URL links to the files.
1and1.com has 250 GB storage with 2.5 TB/mo bandwidth usage for $10/mo. Their phone rep said this type of use of their web space is OK. I wouldn't even look any further except I've read a lot of bad reviews about them.
I have found SL can offer you 12*1 TB drive based systems, after RAID-5 and Win 2003 install you get just over 10 TB of storage. The monthly price works out to $1000/Month.
I know some time ago LeaseWeb offered these type of storages....any one else know of any others ?
Amazon S3 works out to about $1500 for 10 TB
on good hosting setups for getting large amounts of disk space.
I would like to be able to offer up to 2Gb storage space for 100s, maybe up to a few 1000 users - any solution should scale well. The files would be static files that might be up to 400Mb in size.
It would be nice to be able to give users FTP access to their disk space, although it's not a core requirement.
I'm currently running on a VPS. My site allows for large file uploads and downloads, with files over 600mb in size.
The server has issues when the site gets three or more requests for large file downloads. I'm trying to grow this site to thousands of users and it is hard to do when the site can't handle even three.
I've been told by my host that I need to upgrade to dedicated. My VPS only has 512mb RAM and one large file download is eating up that RAM. This is causing the issue.
I'm a newbie and while I knew I was risking a bit by going with VPS I do find it a bit annoying that these guys advertise 1TB of bandwidth per month but I can't even support downloading 1GB at the same time....maybe it's just me...
Anyway, I am now looking into moving the large files and the upload/download over to Amazon S3. If I do this I am expecting my RAM usage on the VPS to greatly decrease. Is this correct? If my PHP code is running on the VPS, but the actual file download via HTTP is coming from S3, that should not be a heavy load on my box, correct?
any opinions on S3?
I have a 6GB backup file created with another Plesk Backup Manager, now I trying to upload this backup file to my Plesk Backup Manager but after upload 3% I am getting "413 Request Entity Too Large" error, I tried with disable NGINX but still getting this error.
how can I resolve this error or is their any other way to upload my file on backup manager?
I see that Backup Manager have a file size restriction of 2GB how can I increase this?
I'm searching a vps to store backups of my "primary vps".
My requirements:
40+ GB disk
400+ Bandwidth
price < 40$/month
a nice plus would be:
UK/Europe location
ubuntu 64bit
The best plan that I've found with these specs is the Serveraxis VS000.5G-0050.0GM: 512MB RAM, 50GB disk, 400GB/month, 35$/month.
Is there something better? (more storage for the same price or same storage for a minor price)
i am thinking about selling backup service
so i need storage and traffic
so what is the best hosting i can get ?
and what is best get hosting or server or what ?
Which companies besides for Dreamhost allow the storage of backup files on their shared hosting accounts?
View 13 Replies View RelatedI have a large database 800MB and the export zip & gzip option does not work on this size database export.
works fine on upto 30MB table sizes, does phpmyadmin not support large table
export/backup using gzip or zip?
If its the case that i should be able to use the zip options then what would i look for to put this problem right?
if its the case large table databases are not supported what could i use instead to backup the database tables with compression (gzip)?
I have backup my domain with Backup Manager and it created 47 GB of backup. If I try to download I recive error 504. How can I download this backup?
View 4 Replies View RelatedMy Centos server running Plesk12 is running scheduled backups every sunday 3AM.
The backup is configured so that it's created as a multivolume backup with a volume size of 2047MB.
The backup is placed on my Personal FTP repo (another plesk12 server mounted with big storage).
The backup content is configured to backup server config and content (all).
The problem I have is when the backup is running I can see that it creates the volumes and stores it locally. After it send all the volumes the the external FTP repo it will delete the local (tmp) data. See my attached screenshot for storage health during backup.
Is this behaviour normal? This way we can never run a backup to an external FTP repo when our server passed 50% storage. Is it not normal to:
- Create a volume
- Send it to FTP repo
- Delete volume locally
- Repeat until done
i just wana know is it safe to do remote daily backup for about 70,000 files?
file sizes is about 200kb and every day i have about 1000 new file, so rsync first should check old files becouse i am deleting about 30-50 of them daily and them backup new 1000 files ,
so how much it will take every time to compare that 70,000 files?
i have 2 option now:
1-using second hdd and raid 1
2-using rsync and backuping to my second server , so i can save about $70 each month.
I'm completely torn on going the absolute budget route vs spending more for something that'll allow easy upgradeability in the future. I basically need lots of space but file sending-- media like mp3s, video, etc.
it'll be raid 5 and I'll need at least 2-3TB initially but the ability to expand would be nice.
option 1:
nice chassis with plenty of hotswap bays with sas expanders
expensive sas raid card
option 2:
cheap chassis to serve "immediate" needs and go with more later.
not sure what I'd use as a card? maybe even onboard?
regarding reliability: I once saw a database of failure rates of different models. raptor was the most reliable of the "desktop" drives. anyone have the link? I'm wondering of the seagate ES drives are worth the extra money vs the non-ES drives. they're supposedely more reliable and the "server versions" of sata drives.
Not sure if this is beyond anyones experience here or knowledge but I thought I would give it a try here and see if I can get any insight on this.
Recently I had to work with a IBM xSeries 226 server which runs two SCSI Ultra320 drives in it at this time. I've actually purchased two extra drives for it but the distributor sent me the wrong drives for that server. Now they are saying its my fault of not proving them with more information but I think stating that I have two SCSI Ultra320 drives would be enough for them to send the right ones.
Now they sent me the IBM SAS Serial ATA SCSI drives, so I was wondering if anyone in here has enough knowledge to possibly provide me on the insight on the solution I think might be right to still use these two drives and not being stuck with a $2000 bill and two drives that I don't use.
My solution would be to buy one of the support or any Adaptec SAS Serial ATA SCSI controller cards and put it into one of the available PCIe slots and connect the drives. I've tried contacting IBM regarding this but they want $200 bucks just to say "yeah it will work or no it wont".
Logically I think it would work, the only thing I'm afraid is that let say I spend $400 - $1000 bucks on a controller card and it doesn't work they way you would think, then I'm out $3000 bucks. (drives are $2000 + $1000 for a controller card).
I just clicked on the Lunarpages webhosting ad at the top of this forum. Not really hunting for hosting myself but regularly suggest places to clients.
I noticed something strange. Their business account has unlimited storage:
# Unlimited Storage
# 3500 Gigs Data Transfer
For 21.95 per month. That's more space than you get with their virtual private servers.
Now we know that's not possible, machines have limits right? I've seen other hosting providers offer unlimited features as well - and since all servers have limited space and bandwidth abilities how can they offer these types of services with out the FTC cracking down for false advertising?
Beyond that, I don't recommend any service that offers unrealistic plans. Am I just overreacting since it seems more and more common?
** note, this isn't an attack on Lunarpages. They were there and it made this thought pop in my head.
I just like to thank Ryan from Aquarius Storage for helping me the other day set up my test account and test the server's loading time with my website. I now have fully transferred from my previous host, PeachyDandy, as my site loaded very slowly. I have now cancelled my account with PeachyDandy.
With Aquarius Storage my website now loads twice as fast as before. Site loading time according to Pingdom:
PeachyDandy - Average of 6 Seconds
Aquarius Storage - Average of 3 Seconds
Website - Mango Chico
Great job with the support Aquarius Storage! Moreover, the staff are very approachable and welcoming!
If you need speed, Aquarius Storage, is your hosting solution
Thumbs up Aquarius!
My site is on forumotion right now. I want to move it and have it hosted somewhere. It is a local Mustang club. I have read all the problems with the oversold sites. I have also looked at others. The big issue is i dont rally know how much space I need. This is the site southshorestangs.com. What it will have is that forum and probably a few webpages. It is still only a month old so it will keep growing hopefully. i just dont want to get way more than I will need.
View 14 Replies View RelatedDoes anyone know of a good reliable and redundant method of organizing clustered storage? I know that IBM has GPFS - has anyone actually used it? Do they charge a crap load for it?
View 6 Replies View RelatedWe need a High Speed "FTP Storage Solution" for transferring our files securely between our offices.
requirements are simple:
1. High Speed / Good Port Speed in Megs.
2. Unlimited Sub-Accounts
3. Restrict Access by Sub-Account
4. FTP Based Access is Important
5. Ability to Create Read Only / Write Only Sub-Accounts
Space: 2 GB +
Bandwidth: 20GB +
Speed: Speed is Key For us. He need high speed Solution. Something in tune of Many MeGPS connectivity. Not shared.
I've been with imhosted for a few years now. I have had horrible experiences with them with a lot of outages and lost data (2 days ago lost 6 months of data, they deny anything happened and have no backups).
I have been meaning to change hosts for a long time now but just haven't got the energy to wade through google trying to guess which have good SEO and which are the real deal.
Any recommendations for a host with the following features would be appreciated:
- PHP
- dedicated IP that isn't blacklisted
- fairly fast PHP processing time for some CPU intensive scripts
- MySQL (just a few needed)
- IMAP
Quality of support and uptime are important and I would easily pay an extra $10 / month for it. My budget is up to $25 / month or so.
I'd like to find the cheapest way to store about 10 to 20 TBytes of data. After looking at some tape drives it seems like it'd be cheaper to get two or three big towers and fill them with large SATA drives attached to 3-ware controller cards.
View 6 Replies View Relatedwe want start with a new infrastructure for VPS service, we have think to use Dell Blade and a CX300 storage with Iscsi, i would your impression on this configuration, i am not sure on the velocity access btw blade nic and storage, do u think that is enough 1gbs port to connect each blade on the storage? how about NFS system? i dont would get trouble with access performance,
View 0 Replies View RelatedIm recently purchase vps from aquarius storage
[url]
im choose plan A4
its very good price for vps with xeon processor
and im get my vps setup on 2 hours included cpanel
usually im bought vps need at least 24 hours cause waiting cpanel license and etc. but aquarius only need two hours
than i submit ticket to get my whm to be setup and optimize and install some software.
and they do fast response and do it .
i just cant believe it will get this kind of services.
its real FULLY MANAGE VPS
Network File Storage (NFS), does anyone use it or find it useful?
From what I see are advantages:
- Raid redundant
- Good backup
- Cheap extra space
Cons:
- slower speeds read/write speeds?
Looking for someone to add on and change my point of view on NFS. Also if you like NFS what is a good model for us to get. We are currently looking at the the Dell PowerVaults...
i want to write this small review for Aquarius Storage i been with them a few weeks now and they are great , great prices and the best of all great support , i ran into a few issues at first , issues i could resolve my self if ihave done further reading and they were nice and help me and even pointed me into some usefull information and tutorials thats great helping customers manage their own vps insted of charging ridiculos prices for simple task like i seen in the past with other providers , keep the good work guys
my site is digitalxeon.net is still on development so there no relevant information on the site yet
thanx Aquarius Storage keep it up!
Support: 10 out of 10
Reliability: 10 out of 10
Value: 100 out of 10
Overall: a solid 10 out of 10
Wondering what kind of storage hardware server builders are using to keep organized? I am currently storing HDD, RAM, PSU, CPUs, and other various parts on shelves and it gets disorganized and messy very quick.
I found this product for HDD and may order some to help organize HDDs:
[url]
Anyone know of similar products or good shevling / cabinets that are computer parts friendly?
