Storage space - price or traffic?

AC_Fan

Which is more preferred by LET users - high bandwidth at roughly 60% of Hetzner prices, or sufficient bandwidth at ridiculously low prices?

Ninja edit: Storage space will be same for both, obviously.

eol

Hetzner.

AC_Fan

@eol said:
Hetzner.

Hetzner indeed. The question is not which provider, but which Hetzner?

eol

Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

EDIT:

priest

Sufficient bandwidth

AC_Fan

@eol said:
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?

eol

I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.

alilet

Sufficient bandwidth

alilet

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?

In this case I would choose 3TB with 1TB space. In fact if bandwidth is just 500GB which will result in further price reduction then I will take that.

AC_Fan

@eol said:
I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.

But but but....
Hetzner's storage boxes/NextCloud have less then that ratio in 50% of their plans! What now, @eol ???!!!

eol

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.

But but but....
Hetzner's storage boxes/NextCloud have less then that ratio in 50% of their plans! What now, @eol ???!!!

LOL.
I already mentioned it to Katie.

AC_Fan

@alilet said:

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?

In this case I would choose 3TB with 1TB space. In fact if bandwidth is just 500GB which will result in further price reduction then I will take that.

So you would be willing to wait one whole month for uploading? Interesting....

AC_Fan

@eol said:

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.

But but but....
Hetzner's storage boxes/NextCloud have less then that ratio in 50% of their plans! What now, @eol ???!!!

LOL.
I already mentioned it to Katie.

Poor @Hetzner_OL , having to put up with fanboys like you.

alilet

@AC_Fan said:

@alilet said:

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?

In this case I would choose 3TB with 1TB space. In fact if bandwidth is just 500GB which will result in further price reduction then I will take that.

So you would be willing to wait one whole month for uploading? Interesting....

@AC_Fan said:

@alilet said:

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.

To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?

In this case I would choose 3TB with 1TB space. In fact if bandwidth is just 500GB which will result in further price reduction then I will take that.

So you would be willing to wait one whole month for uploading? Interesting....

No i just want to store some personal data so bandwidth is not an issue. I am not a hoarder or maintain any seedbox or anything like that.

eol

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:

@AC_Fan said:

@eol said:
I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.

But but but....
Hetzner's storage boxes/NextCloud have less then that ratio in 50% of their plans! What now, @eol ???!!!

LOL.
I already mentioned it to Katie.

Poor @Hetzner_OL , having to put up with fanboys like you.

Yeah, it's disgusting.

AC_Fan

@priest @eol @alilet If you could just vote on the poll. Thanks!

eol

Done.

alilet

Done

AC_Fan

Thanks!

jlay

'Sufficient' is a bit of a catch-all. If it's sufficient, why have more?

With that said, I find it difficult to use a lot of bandwidth in my deployments, so I'd do the cheaper option (I voted ). Bandwidth allocation is the last thing I consider, I look at port speed and connection quality well before that.

edit:
To give a little more context, most of my deployments are clustered, so I effectively have 'pools' of internet bandwidth. The VMs/dedicated servers usually communicate on an unmetered private connection and the external traffic is balanced. As such, I don't tend to need a lot of external bandwidth on a single host.

AC_Fan

@jlay said:
'Sufficient' is a bit of a catch-all. If it's sufficient, why have more?

With that said, I find it difficult to use a lot of bandwidth in my deployments, so I'd do the cheaper option (I voted ). Bandwidth allocation is the last thing I consider, I look at port speed and connection quality well before that.

edit:
To give a little more context, most of my deployments are clustered, so I effectively have 'pools' of internet bandwidth. The VMs/dedicated servers usually communicate on an unmetered private connection and the external traffic is balanced. As such, I don't tend to need a lot of external bandwidth on a single host.

Yeah, I got that 'sufficient' doesn't tell much, which is why I gave the specific example (5TB vs 3TB).

jlay

@AC_Fan said:

@jlay said:
'Sufficient' is a bit of a catch-all. If it's sufficient, why have more?

With that said, I find it difficult to use a lot of bandwidth in my deployments, so I'd do the cheaper option (I voted ). Bandwidth allocation is the last thing I consider, I look at port speed and connection quality well before that.

edit:
To give a little more context, most of my deployments are clustered, so I effectively have 'pools' of internet bandwidth. The VMs/dedicated servers usually communicate on an unmetered private connection and the external traffic is balanced. As such, I don't tend to need a lot of external bandwidth on a single host.

Yeah, I got that 'sufficient' doesn't tell much, which is why I gave the specific example (5TB vs 3TB).

Just poking fun

Yea, in that example I'd go with the 3TB BW : 1TB storage option, assuming it's cost effective (eg: reasonably cheaper).

The edit in the comment I made previously kind of hints as to why - I don't need all that bandwidth in one place. Anything I deploy usually involves at least three servers for HA, so that'd be 9TB BW : 3TB of storage spread across them - perfectly suitable for my needs.

edit:
Another thing to consider is that incoming bandwidth isn't metered with some hosts. Not counting half of it could impact the decision making process as well! I tend to prefer that as my outgoing bandwidth usage is generally less intensive. My servers usually receive another copy of my local backups and run fairly bandwidth-lean workloads (eg: personal Gitlab instance/CICD, AWX).