Is 250 / 300 mbps unmetered good enough?

letlover

1. For a low to medium traffic text/photo rich website?
2. For a low to medium traffic video streaming (a lot of youtube embedded ones plus some self hosting videos) website?
   Thanks in advance.

ReadingIsFundamental

1. How big are the files
2. Where is server? Where are users?
3. what is the quality of transit from your server to your users - that affects the "good enough"
4. how many users do you have? how many files are they pulling during each hour of the week on average?

Then total it up- is there a bottleneck during anytime period? is there excess capacity? is the transit good enough during all hours or do the switch to shit transit during impacted time.

Then you may have a basic understanding of whats "good enough" and if you should keep blasting Hetzners decision.

momkin

Ask @Hetzner_OL

LordSpock

Depends what you consider low to medium traffic. I would say that is absolutely fine.

100 Mbit/s is really acceptable for most use cases, if you are pushing more than ~30TB a month on a website that is mostly standard multimedia (with a lot of it hosted off-site, e.g. YouTube) - I wouldn't really consider that low traffic.

If you are serving a lot of multimedia content, perhaps a CDN would be much more appropriate.

letlover

@ReadingIsFundamental said:
1. How big are the files
2. Where is server? Where are users?
3. what is the quality of transit from your server to your users - that affects the "good enough"
4. how many users do you have? how many files are they pulling during each hour of the week on average?

Then total it up- is there a bottleneck during anytime period? is there excess capacity? is the transit good enough during all hours or do the switch to shit transit during impacted time.

Then you may have a basic understanding of whats "good enough" and if you should keep blasting Hetzners decision.

1. Pages are normally dynamic, about 1-2 MB/page. Self hosted video files are about 100 MB -1 GB. A lot of video files are youtube embedded, not from the website itself.
2. The server is supposed to be at NA. The targeted users are in NA, especially in US.
3. Quality wise it is very hard to say.
4. Typically about 100-500 users per day. Each user typically browse through 1-5 pages, 1-5 videos.

If you read through my posts, I never intentionally abash Hetzner, actually I praise Hetzner a lot, except this limited unlimited bw drama.

In terms of optimizing hosting strategy of my websites, I have been always looking for better ways in terms of web surfing quality and cost effectiveness.

letlover

@LordSpock said:
Depends what you consider low to medium traffic. I would say that is absolutely fine.

100 Mbit/s is really acceptable for most use cases, if you are pushing more than ~30TB a month on a website that is mostly standard multimedia (with a lot of it hosted off-site, e.g. YouTube) - I wouldn't really consider that low traffic.

If you are serving a lot of multimedia content, perhaps a CDN would be much more appropriate.

I think my websites are actually far below 30 TB/m, probably 1-2 TB/m for the text/photo sites, less than 5-10 TB/m for the video sites. Probably in the future, the traffic will grow much more. Not sure about this yet.

Thank you very much for your input.

szarka

250 Mbps is more than enough for a lot of applications. If the traffic to the self-hosted videos is fairly light, I'd guess it wouldn't be a problem—more important to have a quality network close to your users than a fat pipe. If traffic grows, you can always outsource hosting the streaming without too much work.

ReadingIsFundamental

So that is only 5 GB/day for the webpages with 500 users a day, 2 MB per page, 5 pages. 55002 - 5 GB. For videos 5 * 1GB *500 = 2500 GB/Day - whatever you attribute to you tube. Then just do the math to get to mbps. but remember to account for if the users are evenly distributed or if you have peak times

yoursunny

@szarka said:
more important to have a quality network close to your users than a fat pipe

True.
In push-ups delivery network, I found that transit quality matters a lot.
Video quality is better if I have a node on the same continent as the viewer.
My Tokyo node, Oracle Cloud AMD with 50Mbps egress, is the only node with pipe constraints being a problem.

letlover

@szarka said:
250 Mbps is more than enough for a lot of applications. If the traffic to the self-hosted videos is fairly light, I'd guess it wouldn't be a problem—more important to have a quality network close to your users than a fat pipe. If traffic grows, you can always outsource hosting the streaming without too much work.

Thank you for the good suggestions.

letlover

@ReadingIsFundamental said:
So that is only 5 GB/day for the webpages with 500 users a day, 2 MB per page, 5 pages. 55002 - 5 GB. For videos 5 * 1GB *500 = 2500 GB/Day - whatever you attribute to you tube. Then just do the math to get to mbps. but remember to account for if the users are evenly distributed or if you have peak times

Thank you for the math. Right now users are too few to see clear peak times. But NA users typically watch entertainment videos at evening, the time frame used to be TV time.

letlover

@yoursunny said:

@szarka said:
more important to have a quality network close to your users than a fat pipe

True.
In push-ups delivery network, I found that transit quality matters a lot.
Video quality is better if I have a node on the same continent as the viewer.
My Tokyo node, Oracle Cloud AMD with 50Mbps egress, is the only node with pipe constraints being a problem.

You have a very nice technical blog.

nick_

My Oracle Cloud free VMs in Tokyo network egress is 2.5 Gbps. It's ARM.

letlover

@nick_ said:
My Oracle Cloud free VMs in Tokyo network egress is 2.5 Gbps. It's ARM.

Oracle is amazing, when it is underdog in the market. Not so when it is monopoly.

mwt

That sounds like plenty. If you find it's not, you can always offload some videos to CDN or a second node.

letlover

@mwt said:
That sounds like plenty. If you find it's not, you can always offload some videos to CDN or a second node.

Thanks a lot for the input.

vyas11

@mwt said:
That sounds like plenty. If you find it's not, you can always offload some videos to CDN or a second node.

Latter part I concur: BunnyCDN is a good starting point for that. OP can even move to shared hosting once the media files are offloaded to a CDN.

@letlover

Are the images compressed/ optimized/ served in "newer" formats (webp for eg) - and are they dynamic, too?
Is this a woo commerce or a news site, where the pages get updated multiple times a day?

100-500 users per day. Each user typically browse through 1-5 pages, 1-5 videos.

Are the users concurrent? What is their usage pattern like ( specific hours of the day, specific days of the week)

letlover

@vyas11 said:

@mwt said:
That sounds like plenty. If you find it's not, you can always offload some videos to CDN or a second node.

Latter part I concur: BunnyCDN is a good starting point for that. OP can even move to shared hosting once the media files are offloaded to a CDN.

@letlover

Are the images compressed/ optimized/ served in "newer" formats (webp for eg) - and are they dynamic, too?
Is this a woo commerce or a news site, where the pages get updated multiple times a day?

100-500 users per day. Each user typically browse through 1-5 pages, 1-5 videos.

Are the users concurrent? What is their usage pattern like ( specific hours of the day, specific days of the week)

Not concurrent. They spread all of the time from all of the world.

Images are plain jpg or png, not compressed. The pages are all dynamic, backend is php/python/ror/java etc. It is majorly a news site, can do social media, may have e-commerce in the future, like auction site or market like ebay or amazon, but at a much smaller scale.

So many LETers recommend BunnyCDN, I will take a look at it.

ericls

Get it running now and scale later, just be prepared to scale and make it easier to scale.