|1024kbs ( 100% gauranteed ) for web server upload|
Is it enough
| 11:38 pm on Apr 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As the title implies I am wondering what your thoughts are on a gauranteed upload of 1024kbs for a webserver. The contract comes with gauranteed uptime and 100% upload/ dowload speed. Its a symetric DSL connection. Most pages would be under 80K , many of them only 40/50. Its this or expensive dedicated ( to get all the features I want ). Its fixed IP and the TOS is fine with hosting, its " professional " .
| 11:59 pm on Apr 12, 2007 (gmt 0)|
1024Kbps = 128KBps >> several simultaneous connections would mean a noticable reduction in download speed. Considering that most broadband customers experience up to twice the download speed as standard, you would need to have a site that wasn't very busy to be OK with that speed.
It's all down to how large/popular your site is. If you have a large site you also have to factor in search engine spider traffic, on a site with 250,000 pages you will see a search engine vist every few seconds if your pages are spidered fully every month by each of the big engines. That will knowck out 10% of your allocation before you even consider real people.
You need to think about how much traffic you currently use. If you use under 200 GB then there is no reason why you can't go with a top quality host, a dual core dedicated server at Rackspace does not cost much (well under a dollar an hour). A host like this will have plenty of bandwidth for your busy periods. I would recommend Rackspace as they have never let me/my clients down and are considerably better for support and network speed than some cheaper suppliers I have tried.
I suppose it's down to how much you can afford, but I would not skimp on getting a good server/backup/support, it helps you sleep easily.
| 12:15 am on Apr 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Are you saying 90% goes on TCP/IP overhead? The line is such that assuming i was , sat at home on 25MB connection i could download from the server im setting up at 1024K ( less overhead ). I get about 3500 page views a day but will be implementing reseveration system, IP detection , WebDAV and a few other bits and bobs. I have " spent time " with a few VPS servers and they so far ,, suck for reliability..
| 1:33 am on Apr 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Are you saying 90% goes on TCP/IP overhead? |
Presumably, the figure you quoted for bandwidth is in bits/sec, and the figure you quoted for your average page size is in bytes.
He was pointing out that 1024kbits/sec == 128k bytes/sec. (8 bits per byte).
Look at it this way. Let's say your average page size is at the low end of your range: 40K bytes. Your site can serve about 3 pages/second. And it's going to take 1/3 of a second - a very significant delay - just to serve a single page.
At one time, most websites used no more than a T1 connection to the Internet. T1 = 1500kbit/sec.
That time was... 10 years ago.
Your connection is suitable for testing of your site by a client, a small handful of beta users, etc.
Business DSL connections tend to hover a bit above the $100/month price point. You can certainly lease a dedicated server in a good datacenter for this price.
If you are paying much less than $100/month for your connection, read your Terms of Service - you are missing something, and the usage you have in mind isn't permitted.
| 2:11 am on Apr 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
[quote] Presumably, the figure you quoted for bandwidth is in bits/sec [/ quote ]
Perhaps my ignorance shows here which is reason enough perhaps to stay away from what i am looking at. But its in 1000s of bytes per second. 1024 thousand bytes per second. I had thought with this line that i get "out" at about 800Kilobytes per second. In any case what i think is best given my own confusion is to put the "gadget components " on a subdomain and host them here.
| 2:31 am on Apr 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|But its in 1000s of bytes per second. 1024 thousand bytes per second. |
I'd double-check that. Bandwidth is normally quoted in bits/sec, not bytes/sec. In fact, I've never seen anybody quote it in bytes/sec. (You can see why, from a marketing standpoint - 1024kbps sounds much more impressive than 128kB/sec. Note that lower-case "bps" normally means "bits/sec", and capitalized "Bps" means "bytes/sec.")
Though not impossible, that's an awfully high figure for DSL, particularly for outbound. I'd expect to pay several hundred $$$/month for 8mbit/sec service with no cap on traffic. What price were you quoted?
Get a $100/mo dedicated server. No, you won't be able to use 8mbit/sec with no cap, but you will typically be able to burst to well above that speed.
| 2:47 am on Apr 13, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In Spain the cost will be 235 US per month with Cisco router. It needs the installation of a special line also , it wont come in over our regular phone line. I will double check with them again but going over all the docs it states 1MB XDSL in places and 102KBps. Thanks for the heads up though on the difference , specifically in marketing terms.