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.
Dedicated server vs VPS (bandwidth and backups)
I've used so far only VPS(ervers) and it's clear that you have to share your network bandwidth with other VPS users. How does it work on dedicated servers, do I really get e.g. 1 GBit/s when I own a 1 GBit/s dedicated server? Or is the bandwidth also shared between all users using that rack?
What will happen when my dedicated server has a hard disk failure? Will the support just replace it with a new one and my data/setup is gone? (I know about backing up data, so thats not the question here)
Comments
Depends on the host. I know a small host (well, dead now) who used to have gigabit to a whole rack and sold servers with gigabit. Any established DC you're not going to have a problem with.
If you don't have multiple disks in RAID yes, even if you do you should still back up.
Yes, unless you have some sort of RAID configuration. Good hosts don't let their customers get production grade servers with no RAID on them.
1 GBit/s exclusive line(shared with nobody) costs around $350 give or take. If your server is less than a low 3 digits(certainly if its 2 digits) a month of hosting, then there is no economically way they could offer you a dedicated 1 GBit/s to your server.
Generally, as a rule of thumb, the only thing you get 100% guaranteed when you go for a dedi instead of a vps, is the disk space, cpu cores, and RAM. The network speed will be shared if its a budget server, or can be exclusive if you pay it as a add-on(some hostings have this option), but it will cost you a few hundred dollars.
If you see unlimited 1 GBit/s dedicated line on a $30-50 dollar server, then they are lying out of their ass or their AUP/TOS has some fine print you should read before buying.
Thanks, that's what I needed to know.
Please differ between those two terms.
One time it's exclusive, meaning only used by you, the other time it's "unlimited", talking about traffic.
For example Hetzner offers 1gbit/s exclusively for you (throughput mostly achievable with the right peer), but limits usage to 20TB (or more, depending on server price), therefore not unlimited. Prices start at ~35€ (for 1gbps) at Serverboerse and ~49€ for regular pricing.
This is common practice on most hosts offering dedicated servers with 1gbps (e.g. @Clouvider, @cociu, basically anything non-OVH, online.net)
if you want 1gbps excluseve for you you need to pay for this at least 250 eur/mo for a dedicated line
https://10gbps.io/1gbps-servers-prague
1Gbps full dedicated from $180....
2Gbps full dedicated from $320
the price is fluctuating of varius cost , eaven the ip transit cost , etc etc, etc. is too much to elaborate. I have give a exemple in my location where the price for 1gbps is arrownd 350 eur
You cannot compare overstock promo price that's very temporary to realistic offer.
They charge twice that normally, and will charge it in that PoP too very shortly.
Heaving said that, we're happy to match their standard non-promo offer ;-).
Frankly speaking, those myopic companies that advertise "unlimited" bandwidth on 1gbps and "exclusively 1gbit/s up to 20TB" are operating with the pretense that all clients are dumb as fuck.
Certainly your fatuous comment is clearly represented by your vacuous belief that these companies offer their clients "exclusive 1gbits lines up to 20TB", believing that you are the sole user.
Like previously stated, economically speaking, providing this service would be a loss leader for these deceiving hosting companies, thereby incurring a loss instead of a profit.
In other words, I can discern no difference between "unlimited" and "exclusively 1gbit/s up to 20TB" network traffic, when "Unlimited" is advertised as 1 gbit/s exclusively for you up to 20TB. Because it is all the same shit!
With that being said,I will be undeniably flabbergasted if you can't simply deduce the CLEAR difference my friend. However, I feel like you might be aghast with disbelief as soon as you finish reading this post.
@Clouvider will agree with me on this one!
Woah dude, easy - no need to go personal here.
Of course, you cannot make an fitting deal for prices as low as 50€ per month for a, let's say new (or at least blocked for you), "unlimited" 1gbps pipe, equaling the possibility of pushing > 300TB through this pipe when used 24/7, but this wasn't the point.
There is no advertising of "unlimited" at these providers, all stating that your pipe is in theory and at best effort able to achieve 1gbps, but the traffic that you can push through for the included price is "only" 20TB, therefore more "exclusively for you at the time you need it". ("uh that would mean it's a shared pipe", yeah, would it? nah, because the shared thing wouldn't be the 1gbps but rather the whole capacity here)
I can't believe that it's the expensive part for a provider to buy a 1gbps networking card instead of a 100mbps networking card and the connection inside the datacentre, but the stuff that's really expensive is the calculation afterwards. If you'll calculate 20TB for each customer at maximum throughput (even quite less than maxing out a 100mbps line), and then calculate maximum throughput of the line itself (mentioned 300TB+), you'll end up with some different figures, this, and of course bandwidth capacity in total should be the expensive points (but in regard of network stability, it should be somewhere in the region of the offered bandwidth).
That being said, up to some point providers are surely playing a guessing game, assuming that customers won't ever max out their 1gbps ports all at once, but if they don't want their network to collapse, they should've some capacities for this to cover the huge part of this, but because of the traffic limit, they are able to provide more capacities to customers instead of having to block the whole pipe.
Assuming the provider has the capacity (am aware that most don't have, but let's assume they are calculating their total bandwidth capacity in correlation with servers), basically the expensive part therefore would be traffic though.
sigh It's too late here, let's have a nice discussion rather than insulting.
Yeah , now that you went more deep into it. It does make sense, sorry about my previous post I deeply apologize. I was a little bit too much passive aggressive.
Yeah , now that you went more deep into it. It does make sense, sorry about my previous post I deeply apologize. I was a little bit too much passive aggressive.