New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
simply ask your provider
Some hosts have a problem with answering what "fair share" is. I find a better question is asking "how much bandwidth would you suspend me for using".
Most don't know the answer and that's why they have trouble answering it. It's usually relative to how much they oversell and what everyone else is using. If everyone on a server is consistently using 30mbit, that may be too much for that node depending on how much they've sold. A lot of times providers are accepting a low risk and simply considering abuse to be "I'll know it when I see it."
I can understand how that's hard for customers to understand, but I can understand why providers do it as well. Pre-defining the numbers ahead of time makes the conversation a lot harder when you find a solid reason that your numbers were wrong because someone found some way to abuse things while falling within the lines you set.
One of the worst things a host can do is hard define "abuse" because someone always finds a loophole.
Here is my own somewhat arbitrary method for filling up the better part of a certain 1 TB storage server on an "unmetered" but currently severely congested network connection, with the goal of going almost as fast as possible (but not faster!)
1) On sending side, split any larger files into 100 MB chunks for easier "burst mode" transfer
2) Run script on receiving end which logs number of seconds spent pulling a 100 MB chunk over. For each 100 MB, if the number of seconds is between 90 and 3600, sleep for this same number of seconds before transferring another chunk. (And if previous transfer was faster than 90 or slower than 3600 seconds then pause minimum 90 seconds, maximum 1 hour respectively).
The minimum 90-second delay makes sure I never pull more than 40 chunks (ie, 4 GB) per hour even when the network is running well - this works out to max 96 GB per 24 hours, and thus well over 1 TB per month, which I think is an advertised limit for this service - for which I am paying less than $3 per month ...
When the network is congested (as it is now), oh well ... so I end up transferring only 1 GB per day or so given the self-imposed hour-long delays. That's fine with me while the network is being upgraded - since even if I ran non-stop competing to pull my bits through severe congestion when the network is overloaded, I would probably not gain more than another GB of files transferred per day, which doesn't make a substantial difference to me under the circumstances.
Worst case scenario at least produces a time-stamped log of transfer times sampled hourly over several days, which will be useful if it ever does become necessary for me to open a ticket to look into my node's connection to the network. I'm anticipating more likely will see some quiet times in current network load, and will then automatically start to pull a reasonable amount of data over at an increased speed during those times - without stressing either the network or myself.
Of course I know the answer, but I don't think I'm a dick. So there needs to be an actual test. Like when you get your driver's license and need to take an eye test. After that some people will have a note on their license that says they're not allowed to drive without glasses. Some people should have a note on their Paypal saying they're not allowed to rent a sever without engaging their brain. Simples.
Thing is for any resource there is someone with a truly bottomless appetite for that resource, whether it's cpu (scientists/data miners), storage (archivists), or bandwidth (seeders, CDN). CPU and storage conflicts are solved by dedicated servers where you know exactly what hardware you're getting, and hw costs are well enough known that you can tell when a deal is too good to be true. But bw is more likely to always be a shared resource, and the Linux ISO community by its nature always wants infinite amounts of it for free.
Bandwidth costs are pretty known. IX port costs are ususally known too. One has to remember that on top of those cost an ISP has to spread all their 100k Juniper/Cisco routers so naturally the cost is significantly in excess to the wholesale bandwidth costs.
Make sure to check the network and blend before buying a provider . Many providers use cheap or single network while providing unlimited bandwidth while you will not get more than 100 Mbps at any given time or may be less .
why not? just dont make 1000000TB traffic, and youll be fine
Providers should set a fair use policy when they're offering Unmetered bandwidth, just to be sure when a provider suspends a VPS due to too much traffic generated even though it's Unmetered.
I don't know.
But I'm smashing Scaleway right now, around 500mbps for 20h, hope they don't mind.
I don't really understand HOW and WHY people do this... and expect it to work for 3 euro/m
I'm syncing my 2 Google Drive accounts (around 6.5TB, still 2.5TB to go).
And hey, I don't put price in their products, I just buy, if they think it's too cheap for this, just put on the ToS that I can't use more than XXX mbps for X hours and I'll not buy.
I think "unmetered bandwidth" pretty much means "use as much as you can get away with without causing problem to the entire node that causes in someone else on the node complain to the provider causing the provider to investigate and finding out you are the one causing problem to the node"
That right there will get you suspended. I understand the terms need updating and no one can give unmetered for the price point we deal with here. The point is if some one "thinks" they can get it they will buy. The term is very misleading, but what you gonna do? There was a time when unmetered and unlimited was not allowed here. People griped, and the rules changed. Now they want it the other way again. You can not please everyone all the time.