Possible to actually use the entire bandwidth?


#1

I’ve seen so many different variations of this question on here, but have yet to still find a clear answer. Let’s say I have a 1 page static (just plain .html page - no php or anything cpu-intensive). There’s a single link to a say…100MB file.

I know from reading these forums that excessive CPU limits are not welcome (with reason of course) on shared accounts. But would I actually be able to serve up the bandwidth (2 TB offers for the basic plan) for this in actual usage and real world circumstances? I don’t know how much CPU it takes to actually send a file I guess (but I’m not guessing too much, so I don’t think it would really factor it).

If my math is correct, I should be able to have this 100MB file downloaded about 20,000 times…but would this really/seriously be allowed to happen on the basic dreamhost plan? Has anyone ever really gotten anywhere near that? Thanks.

KT


#2

Hello!

I’ve read of some blogs that hosted videos, and spent more than 1000 Gb’s here (videos got dugg), so I think it’s possible. If you aren’t heavy on apache or sql, that there is no reason for that not being possible :slight_smile:

DreamHost $97 discount code: 97promo «« Check other codes on DreamHost97.com
:slight_smile: All money from 90promo was given to Santa’s Helpers Charity :slight_smile:


#3

Thanks, looks interesting…just always skeptical of such a large amount of bandwidth “offered”.

On the video side, do you have any idea of how efficient the QT streaming server is? Unrelated to my original question, but does anyone know how much the server is taxed for serving up a stream of QT video (lower quality, just a general estimate of the performance…or non-performance of the QT server in general I guess).


#4

Shouldn’t be a problem if you’re using static pages. I’d guess that most people pinning the resources are using poorly coded scripts/inefficient DB queries, etc…

Plus, you can use your space here for storage which is usually a fine-print no-no with most hosts that offer large amounts of space.

The main reason that it works out is because most of us use less than 1% of what we’re paying for, so it’s not like a few people that actually use it are going to bankrupt them.

On the other hand, a smaller host trying to compete on price might not be able to back it up and start searching for a reason to cut you off. There have been recent complaints of Bluehost lowering the CPU limits on their cheap plan, so that you’ll upgrade to the more expensive one – but at DH, it’s the same whether you go with any of the plans.

Needless to say, the TOS still applies… so if the large files are illegal in anyway (kiddie porn, copyright issues, etc…), CPU resources won’t be the reason you’re cut off. :wink:


:stuck_out_tongue: Save up to $96 at Dreamhost with ALMOST97 promo code (I get $1).
Or save $97 with THEFULL97.


#5

Hello KT,

I don’t know about QuickTime, because all the movies I’ve seen here are FLV, and they work ok. So any question about QT is better to ask directly at DreamHost’s support :slight_smile:

Good luck!

DreamHost $97 discount code: 97promo «« Check other codes on DreamHost97.com
:slight_smile: All money from 90promo was given to Santa’s Helpers Charity :slight_smile:


#6

Ok sounds good, thanks again for everyone’s help. I am mostly just concerned with the static pages + actual true bandwidth - for things such as a file sharing setup. Not much CPU usage, but tons of files being transferred (all legal of course, nothing bad whatsoever…just lots of stuff).

KT


#7

You’re not likely to run into issues using the setup you’re describing. Serving up a single html file is trivial to the server, and a lot of people will probably link to the file directly. Here’s a sample of some stats from one of my subdomains. It’s got a dynamic file that shows the directory listing, generates playlist files, and renders some dynamic flash too. Looks like most everything is linked directly in my case, but just wanted to show that actual file transfer doesn’t seem to impact server load much at all.

[code]Analyzed requests from Tue, Nov 14 2006 at 2:50 PM to Sun, Nov 19 2006 at 2:53 PM

Successful requests: 1,501
Average successful requests per day: 299
Successful requests for pages: 1,381
Average successful requests for pages per day: 275
Data transferred: 5.19 gigabytes

Process CPU seconds user machine count average
11/19 php5.cgi 0.2800 100.000% 0.001% 6 0.047
11/18 php5.cgi 0.3400 100.000% 0.001% 8 0.042
11/17 php5.cgi 0.1400 100.000% 0.001% 3 0.047
11/16 php5.cgi 0.5000 100.000% 0.002% 12 0.042
11/15 php5.cgi 1.2600 100.000% 0.005% 27 0.047
11/14 php5.cgi 0.7000 100.000% 0.003% 15 0.047

CPU percentage assumes 24000 cpu seconds per day total.[/code]I used a total of 3.22 CPU Seconds used over the course of 5 days.


#8

I remember hearing that porn sites hosted thorugh dreamhost were acutally using up all of their bandwidth. This was a bit ago, before some of the bandwidth upgrades but I suspect the same is still true.

–Matttail
art.googlies.net - personal website


#9

I have a theory that a majority of the data transfer on the Internet today is porn. But as long as there is bandwidth left for my little site I’m happy. So far I haven’t had any problems due to that.


#10

One site I saw using lots of bandwith was a lot less adult :stuck_out_tongue:
It was a Mario brothers animation made with CGI, but like if it was made with legos. It got dugg, and was featured in a lot of big sites…

DreamHost $97 discount code: 97promo «« Check other codes on DreamHost97.com
:slight_smile: All money from 90promo was given to Santa’s Helpers Charity :slight_smile: