Originally Posted by Renegadeandy
I dont believe it costs that much tbh, webhosting is a myth - its cheaper than you think. There is just a lot of text shipping around here, not using up THAT much bandwidth Think about how many page refreshes and messages you need to send to add up even 512kb let alone 1024 of bandwidth to even equal a mb.
the prices I quoted were pulled directly from th web, with the exception of the rackspace quote which I obtained via email, (@$600).
it might be that a small site with very little content of traffic can use a free host, but this site can't!
I thought about what you said, and so I saved the page... the complete page that you posted that on complete with pictures and avatars is 346KB
I moved onto the next page to comtinue reading(~346KB and then went back, (~364kB) so tha tI could press the quote button to quote your post.
I used 1MB of bandwidth in around 30 seconds.
I've spent about an hour on the forum this morning,
taking roughtly 2-3 minutes to read each page, (since I'd only scroll to the latest coments if I'd already read the first half of the comments). I estimate that in just browsing, (only posting three messages so far) that I have used some 6MB of bandwidth, (using the figures quoted above).
consider that I'll probably browse around for another hour later in the day.
and maybe spend a couple of hours online this evening. that makes about 30MB of bandwidth that I'll use today...
even with only 15 dedicated users, thats 450MB per day (30 days in a month that's 13GB of traffic on the dedicated members.
(if there are only 15 dedicated users that means that we can all form pair of members and mods... -oh wait... it wasn't true, there are actually more than 15 regular members!).. so just on the *regulars* the forum probably far exceeds that 20GB guess...
(and there are far more guests that regular users who take up the same bandwidth pushing the figure probably at least ten times higher (there are currently 198 active users. - 11 members and 187 guests), and that's while america sleeps. -i.e while the UK sleeps there are many more American/Australian/Canadian guests on this forum.)
if we assume each of those 198 current users only looked at one page (again we'll bench mark the page at 346Kb) that's 198 * 346 = 68508, (we'll divide that by 1024 to get ~66MB of traffic in the few seconds it took each person to load a page.
can we assume that they might have looked at two pages? -I mean most people come here actually looking for something... the average quest might use the search option, and click through a few threads to find the answer to the problem they may have had. -so I'd think most guests look at perhaps 5-10 pages before moving on.
suddenly the bandwidth issue is spiralling...
the sad fact of the matter is that this site transmits more information every second to members and guests than a lot of sites have in total...
(certainly I don't have 66MB to transfer in "just a lot of text shipping"
on my site...), and unless you have files stored on your site for download, I'd also hazard a guess that all the HTML etc only your page doesn't add up to 66MB either.
in short... just text it may be, but it still adds up! (145KB of just HTML incase anyone was considering trying to add a proxy server into the situation (to reduce graphcs downloads)... the HTML isn't proxied in any situation...
so even if we to were assume that everyone has huge webcaches, and sit behind uber efficiant proxy servers, there is still a huge amount of data going out at anyone second, *just* in HTLM coding!.
I do realise that not all of that comes from Davids server the pictirial add at the top took 10kB of that space... (the add was included)
Also when peole post an image, it is hosted elsewhere, (e.g image shack) it takes their bandwidth, not Davids. (there were no external pictures when I quoted page sizes!)
for a good guess I'm going to say that the page size is actually reduced to 200KB, (that is what I estimate an average, since not all pages have 15 posts on them), and some pages will be a lot larger than the page previous to this one.).
I also estimate that there are only 50 users, (a quarter of the current amount),
and that those guests read one 200K page every five minutes.
(again longer than I take read a page half filled with posts... -but I'm trying to be realistic).
I'm counting members in with guests, and I envisage, (since I've quartered the online amount, nearly halved the page size and added a few minutes to read/refresh/move on time), that I can fairly say that that will happen all day, as a steady flow of traffic.
so we have 50 users,
200K page size
288 five minute intervals in a day. (24 hour period)
30 days in a month
that's 82.3974609375GB of traffic per month...
and as I pointed out, I actually quartered the number online to reach that figure! so I'd go out on a limb to suggest it was perhaps double that!
the rack space server that I'd quoted was severB on this page
($600 PM) (includes only 150GB transfer per month)...
certainly over the summer when a lot of people were online rather than in school those numbers could have been smashed three or four times over.
However back to your original point. no HTML hosting doesn't cost a great deal, £1.99 per month from 1&1? but that's not a dedicated server is it?
I think that this place is still a good, (perhaps better) deal since they say unlimited bandwidth...
(though I guess they might change their mind a bit later!)
Also, (as Seti should know). the database for Vbulletin is quite efficiant... I wouldn't like to say how many posts are actaully worthwhile, (posts can be as short as 3 chars to a few thousand, so each takes up a different amount of space, and guessing a figure isn't usefull either!
perhaps David could give some insight into how big the databse is for CF...
(my guess is ~5GB) -and that is *just* text... pictures are stored sepratly...
one last thig to bear in mind is that CF has actually been pushed from host to host in the past due to members posting content that violated server providers AUP.
so I have a feeling that we (the members) may have pulled the mat from under davids feet regarding cheaper hosting options.