True of False?

C

Collabora

Account Disabled
Huge hard drives and big pipes to the internet back bone mean that disk space and bandwidth are no longer the limiting factors on shared hosting.

True or False?

Explain
 
Last edited:
I won't vote as it is true and then it is not. The end story comes to how properly managed it is. If done correctly, space and bandwidth simply is irrelevant, the limiting factors come down to CPU, ram and so on.
 
Storage Costs

I vote Yes! Over the last 30 years, space per unit cost has doubled roughly every 14 months (increasing by an order of magnitude every 48 months)


Historical Cost per GB of HD space over the years

PHP: 
Year	Average Cost Per Gigabyte
2014	$0.03
2013	$0.05
2010	$0.09
2005	$1.24
2000	$11.00
1995	$1,120
1990	$11,200
1985	$105,000
1980	$437,500


At 3 cents per GB, there is little justification to charge different prices for different shared hosting plans whose essential difference is disk space

More analysis can be found here: http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte-update
 
Last edited:
Mera Hosting said:
I'd say true, however as RDOServers said it's not quiet that cheap yet but still cheap.
Click to expand...

He's comparing SSD to HD. This thread really isn't about how much you can spend, its about how little you can spend. Thus his choice of drive doesn't invalidate my conclusion.

But SSDs have also shown dramatic decreases (that's why they are so popular now) and down to less than $0.50 per GB. Amazon has a Samsung 840 EVO 1TB for $400. Over a two year lifetime that's only a little over a penny per month per GB. Compare that to the monthly prices charged for hosting plans and the answer to my question in poll is a resounding TRUE!
.
.
.
 
I'm going to have to say false you can have the biggest hard drives ever made you still cant avoid the the HDD is still being the bottleneck when it comes to performance. I do not care how big your pipes are or how super fast your processors are. you cant make a SATA 7200 bypass disk IO and sustained Iops. So you still limited to what ever those drives can push.
 
lowesthost said:
I'm going to have to say false you can have the biggest hard drives ever made you still cant avoid the the HDD is still being the bottleneck when it comes to performance. I do not care how big your pipes are or how super fast your processors are. you cant make a SATA 7200 bypass disk IO and sustained Iops. So you still limited to what ever those drives can push.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Good advice when considering computer purchases of any kind. Well said.
 
True & false. Bandwidth is not much of a limited factor anymore, but diskspace still is - especially in markets pushing toward SSD storage, where the cost per gigabyte is still higher. Add to that the fact that each node can only hold so many drives (for most that's gonna be 4), and for web hosting in particular, some control panels (there amongst cPanel) only natively supports up to three for web storage afaik - and well..

Disk space is and will remain the issue for many years to come. Bandwidth is no longer much of an issue, and hasn't been for a while.
 
lowesthost said:
I'm going to have to say false you can have the biggest hard drives ever made you still cant avoid the the HDD is still being the bottleneck when it comes to performance.
Click to expand...

It appears you misunderstood the poll. While your point about performance is true, it really has nothing to do with the cost of disk space, or its allocation in hosting plans, or its cost relative to hosing plan prices. Obviously, disk performance does not increase if your site is on a 10 gb plan instead a 5 gb plan on same server
 
False

Because even though if we could provide heaps of these resources, there would still be limits on them. Other parts of the HDD and bandwidth still have to be accounted for, for instance IOPS and optimizing and clean routing of the traffic coming in and out of the services.
 
Harv45 said:
False

Because even though if we could provide heaps of these resources, there would still be limits on them. Other parts of the HDD and bandwidth still have to be accounted for, for instance IOPS and optimizing and clean routing of the traffic coming in and out of the services.
Click to expand...

But how does the few gb disk space quota difference between two plans affect that? Is it not true that a site on hosting plan with a small amount of space may use more of those other resources than as plan with "heaps" of space? Is it also not true that the unit cost of the extra gb of space in the larger plan is so small that it does not make up any sizable part of the price difference of the two plans?
 
Last edited:
I'd say true, as even phones and smart watches and even micro sd cards arent expensive and they give you some good space you can carry with, and also you see hosts costing less and less per month.
 
Collabora said:
But how does the few gb disk space quota difference between two plans affect that? Is it not true that a site on hosting plan with a small amount of space may use more of those other resources than as plan with "heaps" of space? Is it also not true that the unit cost of the extra gb of space in the larger plan is so small that it does not make up any sizable part of the price difference of the two plans?
Click to expand...

Exactly which is why providers cannot simply provide reliable xGB/xTB of bandwidth and diskspace for dirt cheap and call it a "night". Because even if you have the "amount" you still have to account for offering the "quality" of both parts of the plan.
 
Harv45 said:
Exactly which is why providers cannot simply provide reliable xGB/xTB of bandwidth and diskspace for dirt cheap and call it a "night". Because even if you have the "amount" you still have to account for offering the "quality" of both parts of the plan.
Click to expand...

Then you agree, and your answer should have been TRUE. The cost of lots of Diskspace/bandwidth is a tiny fraction of -- if not negligible -- part of the cost of providing quality, yes?
 
Collabora. some us see through your BS questions. You continued attempts to defend "unlimited" hosting is obvious, by trying to claim that storage is cheap. While it is cheap compared to past years/decades, it's nowhere near what you're claiming. And others here have right said "false" to the insane question.

I guess you found a new home at WHD, after being banned from WHT for trolling.

Are you still reselling Godaddy, or did you finally get your own servers?
 
Let's do the math. This scenario will assume the more expensive storage option

  • As shown above the high end of unit cost of storage is about $0.50 per GB
  • Now lets use RAID1 which costs the most in storage space. Now our unit cost doubles to $1.00 per Gb
  • Let's assume a server life of 25 months (its probably longer but we'll err on the side of my critics)
  • Thus the monthly cost of storage becomes $1.00 divided by 25 months = $0.04 per month

Conclusion: Unit cost of disk storage is only a few pennies per month. A 3 GB plan uses 12 cents per month storage, 5 GB hosting plan uses $0.20; a 10 GB plan $0.40. The difference between the 3 GB plan and 10 Gb plan is $0.28/mo in storage costs
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top