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.
Storage space - price or traffic?
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.
Bandwidth versus storage
- ^See above19 votes
- Sufficient bandwidth, crazy prices63.16%
- High bandwidth, comparatively higher prices36.84%
Comments
Hetzner.
Hetzner indeed. The question is not which provider, but which Hetzner?
Since I don't like limits that much I would prefer the high BW one obviously.
EDIT:
Sufficient bandwidth
To provide some specific examples: 3TB bandwidth per 1TB storage, or 5TB bandwidth per 1TB storage?
I would want a 5:1 ratio at minimum.
Sufficient bandwidth
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.
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.
So you would be willing to wait one whole month for uploading? Interesting....
Poor @Hetzner_OL , having to put up with fanboys like you.
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.
Yeah, it's disgusting.
@priest @eol @alilet If you could just vote on the poll. Thanks!
Done.
Done
Thanks!
'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).