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.
Traffic assigned by account instead by server
Hi all, we're considering a new traffic accounting method, based on the client account, instead per server.
For example, the customer order 2 VPS servers with 1 TB/month limit each one, then, their traffic pool is 2TB/month and if the server A reaches the 1 TB limit, but the server B has only used 100 GB, then, the server A can still be active and without any network restriction.
What do you think about?
Comments
Iirc linode use this method
Sounds great. I'd be interested.
Good service.
Good and bad at the same time.
If ServerA has 1TB bw limit and it by mistake goes to 2TB then it means suddenly both my servers are suspended whereas with the 1TB limit only one of them would be suspended.
So you get a negative vote from me.
You can't monitor and limit traffic in your server?
In such case, there should be an option for both VMs the max BW it can use.
From someone who is a host: no, people can't monitor and limit traffic in their server.
good idea,
would like to see an option to set % on other vps limit.
so that the other vps won't get suspended if a gets a huge bandwidth jump.
That’s nothing new really. It’s often a standard with smaller providers.
Nice killswitch, use 2TB on one VPS, take 4 VPS's offline.
Its called "Bandwidth Pooling"
Can you?
You can but up to a point, I think the issue with bandwidth pooling is that if you reach the bandwidth limit then it means all your account is suspended.
Always a useful feature, to make your offering stand out.
Who suspends on bandwidth excess these days ?
Uptime should always prevail, normal business practise is to bill for overages.
Look at you and your UPPITY demeanor yet again, Dom. Pretty sure at least 3/4 of LET would rather be turned off than charged another nickel.
What about premium locations, where bandwidth is an issue?
I'd actually welcome it. As well as the ability to enable auto top-up with clearly defined limit. E.g. "while traffic >=2 and traffic <= 10: top_up(1)"
If you call it Virtual Rack® you can charge more for it, though.
Pretty sure Craigslist has the copyright on this for creepy internet hookups.