Forum Moderators: phranque
So they force me to pass to a higher plan for U$40 monthly (the actual was below U$9 monthly).
Is that legal?
<snip>
A dedicated server is completely out of my budget and don't want to live this again. Moving a website is a real mess. (backing up, dns, email, ftp configuration, bla bla)
[edited by: physics at 8:48 pm (utc) on Jan. 13, 2006]
[edit reason] No specific hosts please, see Charter [/edit]
A website using 10% of the resource of a shared environment is a good enough reason for an ISP to terminate your service. Either the shared server you are on is a really lousy one, your scripts are poorly written or you are getting major traffic. Alot of decent webhosts run dual xeon raid5 servers for shared environment, sites that use 10% resource of such machine should consider moving to a dedicated box, and should be able to make enough money to do so.
Just my 2 cents.
hmmm, so for example my plan says 50 GB monthly bandwidht and i only use 20GB but that accounts for 10% or more, is reason enough to get kicked?
I dont really understand that, if i signed up for 50GB then surely i can expect to use that figure, right?
just wondering
regards
viggen
If you use no server-side scripting of any kind, then about the only thing they might tag you on is bandwidth and disk I/O actvity because of the (usually big compared to HTML) image files. But you've said you're below the bandwidth limit. Maybe their server usage info gathering is flawed. But ask *them* what the problem is, otherwise we are all just guessing, and this thread serves little purpose.
If they tell you that you're using too much disk and bandwidth, and you point out that your report tells you that you are below the limit, and they still insist on charging more, then move your sites. Yes, it's extra work, but if the choice is between that and getting robbed, then do it. There are plenty of operators out there that advertise 'big numbers' but make their money on the fact that very few sites actually use the advertised level of resources.
You can significantly lower the pain of moving a site by uploading to the new server, testing, switching the DNS, waiting for it to propagate, and only then shutting down the old account. A high-speed internet connection and a fast multi-threaded FTP client help (for uploading), too. :)
Good luck with this,
Jim
If all your pages are static, then you should just change to a better host.
That's what they say
Your usage:
CPU: %15.1
Memory: %18.03
Resources Exceeded: by %23.13
Process Report
-------------------------------------
Top Process %CPU 15.1 httpd [www.mydomain.com]
Top Process %CPU 8.0 httpd [www.mydomain.com]
Top Process %CPU 6.0 httpd [www.mydomain.com]
I had to pay for staying 15 days more 5 times higher the price of a regular contracted month. What's worst the TOS is the same so they can say again "you are using too much" now move to a higher and more expensive plan.
I think <my host> hosting service is abusive. If you can recommend any other stick me.
[edited by: jatar_k at 8:19 pm (utc) on Jan. 20, 2006]
[edit reason] no naming specific hosts [/edit]
They sell you a bandwidth and hd space you cant use....
I had to pay...5 times higher the price of a regular contracted month....
I think [my current] hosting service is abusive.
"Bandwidth" and "hard-drive space" are not the same thing as "resources".
It doesn't matter if you have only one file taking up only ten kilobytes, if that one file is a script that eats up all the CPU's computational time and causes every other site stored on the (shared) server to stop functioning.
I don't know that any host would, or could afford to, allow one user to monopolize the server's processing power. If you plan to use more than nine percent or so of the CPU's resources, especially if it's on any sort of regular basis, I think you should start thinking about a dedicated (un-shared) server. And I think you'll find that the fees being charged by your current host are not out of line for the industry.
Just my $0.02, based on my experience....
Eliz.
High bandwidth allowance is not a plus, it's a dead giveaway that a hosting plan isn't for real. 30 to 40 gig per month is the max I'd expect to actually be delivered, and that only from top end hosters, on shared.
If you are correct and your site is receiving 50 k visitors, and I assume is getting something like 200k page views a month, that's not very much if it's a static html site.
A top quality shared hoster should support something like 1 gigabyte a day of traffic on a shared account, how many pages that works out to depends on how image/media heavy the stuff is. The fewer graphics, the more page views are possible, 5-10k a day would not be unreasonable to expect in my opinion.
The only way the processor numbers could be that high, since top is used I assume it's apache on *nix, if you are really not using any dynamic scripting at all is if the server is really really old and slow. Like 5 or 600 megahertz celeron, or similar, running 256 mB ram or something like that.
Quality hosters I use for shared stuff easily support that type of traffic with fully dynamic database driven content like forums, blogs, etc. Cost is about $15 a month for 1 year prepaid. I would never spend less, how is the hosting company going to deliver bandwidth, build good servers, have good tech support, etc, and make a profit? It's not going to happen.
Basically, when you drop down into most less than $10 a month hosting plans you are making a major crapshoot with your site. I know one hoster that comes in at that range, and they seem alright, but I'd never put my own sites on them, but they are ok.
Giving 6 domains, for 'free', that's not 'free', that's a reduction in your other services so the hoster can make money. I pay for each extra domain, a very small fee, and it's worth it. I never have bandwidth issues, I never have server useage issues, but that might change the coming months, LOL... we'll see, it's definitely going to be a test of the limits of shared hosting for me.
I've read so many variants of your post over the years, one problem after another, you name it, people have it. I sit back and consider that extra $20 a month I pay [that's for the higher quality package] the best spent money I've ever put out, there's nothing like using the best, no headaches, that's what you get when you pay for top end shared.
Respect TOS of course and keep the hosting discussion generic, no specifics, for excellent reasons. I believe that there may be at most 3 top quality usa based shared hosting providers.
They sell you a bandwidth and hd space you cant use. Since I'm only using 50% or less but they claim "major system resources usage":
Again, I don't think they are selling bandwidth and hd space you can't use. There is no host in this world would let you claim 15% of its CPU usage and 18% of its memory in a shared environment. This is unreasonable, and not at all fair to all other customers who share the same server as your website.
Of course, you might be on a pentium II 266 with 32 megs of RAM, then that might explain the % of resource your site is hogging. :)
My host is probably one of the best host available in the US, (expensive, but with 24/7 support and within minutes email support). I have a dedicated box and 3 shared account with them. I have seen them terminating accounts for the exact reasons.
2by4 - Thanks for your note about "free" domains. I've been hosting for several years with a great company (low-cost but highly recommended by several people I really trust). The cost per account is low, but each domain has to be on a separate account. This has been fine as long as I've had two large sites, which is what I've done up til now. I'm thinking of starting some smaller sites and have wondered if I should get one of those "x free domains" accounts somewhere else. Your post has given me something to think about. Even with each domain on a separate account, the cost at my current host would be reasonable.
but having some 50.000 visits monthly lastly.
Sounds like a hosting scam to me.
Why not install a good site meter that provides accurate stats so you can tell how many "unique" visitors you are really getting. ONce you have that info then you can approach the host with what appears to be their inflated visitor counts.
Also, if you have paid for any traffic, via pay per click or any other means, check to make sure the visitors are actually looking at your site. If your visitors are there for only "0" seconds each, then that will be a scam also.
If you have not attempted any traffic gains other than just building your site I would supsect it's a hosting scam. Search for "internet hosting scams" for more info.
[edited by: jatar_k at 8:19 pm (utc) on Jan. 20, 2006]
[edit reason] no naming specific hosts [/edit]
silverbytes, I ask the question differently:
are there any downsides to getting a dedicated IP for each domain?
Since that answer to that question is of course no, ask yourself this:
are there any benefits, except saving about $1 a month, to NOT getting a dedicated IP for each site?
Again, the answer is no. On a quality hosting account, where you pay for each ip, shared, if you host 10 sites, it costs about $2.50 per month per site. This is so ridiculously low that it's not even worth talking about. 5 accounts, $5 a month, again, so low it's not even worth thinking about.
Keep in mind, one sign of quality is dedicated IPs for each account. No low end hoster does that because it costs them money, and most have very few IP addresses, most do not even have datacenters, dns servers, or much of anything else except a reseller account with a hosting company.
I simply don't understand why people use bad hosting when good hosting is so cheap. It does make for entertaining threads I guess.
Why don't you tell what is the name of that hosting provider?
Because it's against the WebmasterWorld Terms of Service. And anyway, there's no need to get that specific.
So, again, sorry if I seemed impolite, and welcome to Webmasterworld.
While you can extract meaningful information in that environment, it's not easy, and requires some knowledge about what makes a good host to begin with.
It's better to just get a sense of what makes for good hosting, then look for a company that satisfies those requirements. The better your requirements, the less likely you'll end up with a bad hoster.
