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.
Looking for replacement for managed Seedbox
Over the last couple years I've gotten a lot more experienced with running Linux and I'm interested in setting up my own VPS for personal Seedbox. Here's the specs on what I currently pay for through a Seedbox management company:
400 GB storage,
3 TB/mo bandwidth,
20 Gbps link,
Netherlands,
€13.95/mo
If I manage a VPS myself, am I going to get any price better than that? I was grandfathered in at a pretty good rate IIR.
Obviously, needs to be hosted in Netherlands because Seedbox.
If this isn't the right form for this question, I apologize. Thanks in advance.
Comments
@cociu
I think the OP is looking for Netherlands as location.
Yeah but with his stated usage it won't really matter.
Netherlands is the goto, but any EU torrent friendly country I would be open to. To the best of my knowledge, that would be Netherlands, Switzerland or Spain.
People seem to be getting by just fine with @cociu in romania. Btw, switzerland is not even in the EU and i highly doubt they are very torrent friendly. Spain seemed to be a good option at one point but no idea how current that is.
Some of the offers from @cociu look promising but it seems as if all the the Storage VPS options are sold out.
Seedboxes will be cheaper than VPS. Try FeralHosting, I have had good experience with them.
I think you will find that 20Gbps shared port will cost more.
What's the point of 20GBit/s with only 3TB of transfer.
To be able to use it all in < 2 seconds? Seems obvious to me.
20Gbps is not a hard requirement. Just what I currently have.
Probably I'm just plain missing the topic here, but what's the point of 20Gbps on a VPS, for downloading / seeding? Please could someone show me how that makes even a bit of sense? A unmetered 100M or 100M 95th on 1G would make far more sense, imho.
Yawn. OneProvider.
Faster download. Let say you have 15minutes to live and you want to download movie that is 40GB in size, 100mbit will get you nowhere.
The benefit of the 20gbit port is to 'race' to finish the torrent as quickly as possible and in turn seed it to many more people. Mainly used in private trackers where you need to maintain a decent upload/download ratio.
Yeah, but where's the 20G coming from? I really can't imagine a bunch of torrent seeders sustaining 20G for you to leech. Not to speak of all the limitations alone in most carrier networks. If you're for example leeching on M247 in Brussels, you're high likely limited by a 10G port somewhere in their backbone, removing any sense of the 20G.
You'd be pleasantly surprised - a popular release will hit that capacity (at least in Central Europe) within minutes of being announced.
I never said it was a practical solution nor that effective, that's 'usually' the explanation that people give to these sorts of questions. Believe me I'm all for the slow and steady approach. Another note, as a shared connection I'd much prefer a larger pipe like this one than the same machine of network heavy users that torrenters are trying to share a 1gbit connection. Especially if you're the initial seeder distributing a file, having that quicker connection that very very few could entirely saturate gives a better experience all around.