Three IPs? <snip>
[edited by: trillianjedi at 11:16 am (utc) on Sep. 14, 2005]
[edit reason] Let's leave unnecessary cursing at the door please ;-) [/edit]
Security-wise, running the SSH daemon on a different IP to the website IP is a very good idea.
In my opinion, two is a minimum requirement for one website, three is useful.
I have 7 on most of my servers, running various services and websites. A dedicated IP per website is a nice thing to have.
|$4,080 for the bandwidth overage |
Sounds to me like you really need an uncapped server, unless this wouldn't normally happen other than your mistake(?) of leaving the proxy running?
"In my opinion, two is a minimum requirement for one website, three is useful.
I have 7 on most of my servers, running various services and websites. A dedicated IP per website is a nice thing to have."
I'm speechless. My co-location box costs a fortune for really crappy bandwidth, and I have one IP that I use for all services and all my virtual sites...
If you have a search, you'll find a whole load of threads on here regarding having a dedicated IP per website and security reasons for running FTP and SSH on dedicated IP's with no DNS set.
Let's not take this thread off-topic though.
I'm not worried about the number of IP's, just the amount they are charging me for bandwidth. Is $4080 a resonable charge for 3.14Mbps of bandwidth @95?
The large bandwidth use was only a result of my proxy being open for three days. My normal usage is typically idle.
I don't really understand the situation here. How many bytes were transferred? And where did the data go?
If you're saying that you sustained 3.4 megabits per second for 3 days straight, I believe that comes out to 110 gigs, and that would be about $37/gig, which is expensive for a US host. I think mine is $5/gig over the limit of 50 gigs. But 110 gigs is a huge amount of data.
That's over $1000/Mbps. I am sure if you look at their charges for bandwidth when charged as mbps commit it would be much lower than that. If they don't have such plans, that would be a sign of a hosting reseller who does not have the burst capability to absorb this. I have not seen published rates at this level in a long time. Certainly not at major co-lo's.
If we were charging you it would be about a tenth of that if it even got noticed. Mind you, the base monthly would run you 500 or so to begin with at 1mbps sustained non-throttled.
not sure about colocated, but I have a managed ded server and pay $230 a month for 600GBs a month (I use 50 GB max). I'm sure I can get double that for an extra $100 or so. You should do the math, see how your traffic is and might consider switching so traffic can spike and you still end up within the allowed quota. I dont like suprises.
[edited by: trillianjedi at 11:02 am (utc) on Sep. 17, 2005]
[edit reason] See Sticky [/edit]
regardless of what any of us might offer as reasonable.
check your service agreement, if you used it and they laid out a cost, you're on the hook.
>> and paying this just seems unthinkable
unfortunately, if you left something open/running and they can prove it you have to pay the bill.
Have you tried calling them and talking to them about this? If you explain that you are 18 and $4k is just out of your reach to pay, they may be willing to work out a deal. They may see that $1k is better than $0, plus less of a hassle than taking you to court for the money.
Let's face it, you are 18. Taking an 18 year old to court for money is near fruitless as you probably have no assets and no or low paying job (I could be wrong, but typically). They could technically get the money from you but it could be over a decade's time that the court forces you to pay. A blemish on a credit report probably also has no meaning for you as I doubt that you are looking to buy a house anytime soon and would probably need a co-signer on a car loan anyway.
Try calling them and seeing if you can work out a deal.
Definately call them and try to work something out.. We had a similar issue last year when replacing a few servers.. We were moving massive amounts of data from the old to the new server but instead of going into the co-lo and putting in a cross-over cable we just pushed it across the network.. They charged us because the data went over their switch even though it never really left the rack and any 'real' bandwidth..
We worked out a deal where they waved it entirely and we expanded our rack space..