Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: phranque
Im not sure how all this is calculated. Can someone explain please.
Im not sure how many hits my site will get. Could someone provide an example of the type of website and amount of hits would be allowed to cover this 3gb bandwidth
3072Mb = 3145728 Kilobytes (thank you excel)
My site is mainly text based, and also has a limit of 3Gb
On average, each page takes up 6 kb of bandwidth for each user viewing that page. It should be higher but a lot of things on my pages get cached
So I should be able to get half a million page views. For a more graphical site - I would at least half that
Also Im hoping to develop a number of sites for clients.. so depending on how popular there sites become a may vary in bandwidth. They say - 'We will automatically bill you for any bandwidth usage over 3 GB a month at the rate of 5p per MB' could this be expensive??
Hopefully it will be.. But im also thinking of developing a number of sites (all hopefully popular) and other sites for clients.. therefore I think a reseller option is for me..
From you comments this host seems expensive for what i want, have you any ideas - the kind of host im after is - Reseller, lots of space and bandwidth, ASP, Control Panel, web stats, support, NT server, mySQL, most of all reliable and cold fusion would be an advantage..
Im in the UK, if that makes any difference (thinking of support calls etc)
thanks for all your help.
Erm, its entered my mind! not sure where to start, server specs, costs, keeping it running, customer support!
I wanted to find a host first for a year, to find the in's and out's, learn as much as possable and then move to my own server with my clients..
So for this year im really looking for a host to meet my requirements.
i've got their virtual server deal which is obviously for only one domain name at a time, but is much cheaper - £17 a year + bandwidth (eg 5MB is £12.80 61MB is £92.16).
partly depends if you need everything that comes with the re-seller option, or whether a number of virtual servers might be more efficient and cost-effective.
the stuff i've got hosted with them is fast to load and you've got access to perl, mysql etc. they're also fairly big and reputable which is re-assuring.
downside is their customer care which is very hit and miss - sometimes charming, sometimes just never replied to.
also depends how you feel about virtual servers in general - i don't really see any problem with them, but some people do (eg there's an article on this site about search engines not trawling virtual servers properly).