True of False?

Partly true. I would say it is not only about the hardware that certain hosting providers use, but it is also about the web hosting stereotype. People are teach from the very beginning that it is a hosting mostly available for low traffic, small to medium sites and most of them do not even reach those bandwidth limits, which makes it even pointless to put some limits on it
 
This depends on whether you are controlling other factors.

If you offer a customer "unlimited" diskspace and don't limit say the number of domains they can host. All of sudden they could be hosting 1000s of sites and using all of your server CPU, I/O and memory.

So I suppose if you are looking after your own interests you are just moving the limiting factor to somewhere else.
i.e. restricting domains, or CPU usage or memory etc.
 
ughosting said:
This depends on whether you are controlling other factors.

If you offer a customer "unlimited" diskspace and don't limit say the number of domains they can host. All of sudden they could be hosting 1000s of sites and using all of your server CPU, I/O and memory.

So I suppose if you are looking after your own interests you are just moving the limiting factor to somewhere else.
i.e. restricting domains, or CPU usage or memory etc.
Click to expand...

But that has nothing to do with the unit cost of disk space and that cost's contribution to the price of a hosting plan. Certainly, if you look at the numbers, the price difference between say a Plan A and a Plan B and a Plan C cannot be justified in terms of the difference in cost of telescoping disk space limits.

On another note, you're premises are false. You presume that if host offers unlimited disk space that they must also offer unlimited cpu, i/o, and memory, and if they don't then something is wrong. Yet the hosts that do limit disk space are perfectly justified in imposing the same limits to ram/io/mem that supersedes the plan's limits. Why have the the disk space limit if that is not the real limit? -- especially given the fact that just about 100% of web sites suitable for a shared hosting environment requires less than a couple GB of space?
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
easyhostmedia said:
You keep saying this , but have never provided any evidence to this.
Click to expand...

What is the average web site size on your server? What more evidence do you want than that?

If you look at pingdom you will see the average size of a web page is less than 1 mb. A 2 gb site would be more than 2,000 pages. If the site is database and script driven then a lot of the content is generated on the client side, thus making the 2,000 page site smaller, the size of the db being smaller than the sum total of the pages it can generate if those pages were static. Thus a 2gb site is relatively large

A WP site starts at about 35 mb -- and a lot of them don't seem to get much larger.

Another point of evidence: its the one thing no one has disagreed with, of all the times I've mentioned it.
 
Last edited:
Collabora said:
What is the average web site size on your server? What more evidence do you want than that?
Click to expand...

that's not evidence to say 100% of shared hosting required less than 2GB of space.

and Pingdom is always 100% correct. You cannot trust what Pingdom says as they dont accepts false positives when it comes to uptime monitoring
 
easyhostmedia said:
that's not evidence to say 100% of shared hosting required less than 2GB of space.
Click to expand...

I never said that

and Pingdom is always 100% correct. You cannot trust what Pingdom says as they dont accepts false positives when it comes to uptime monitoring
Click to expand...

I never mentioned using pingdom for monitoring

You really must do something about your habit of refuting things I never said. My numbers and conclusions stand un-refuted
 
Collabora said:
I never said that



I never mentioned using pingdom for monitoring

You really must do something about your habit of refuting things I never said. My numbers and conclusions stand un-refuted
Click to expand...

You stated

Collabora said:
If you look at pingdom you will see the average size of a web page is less than 1 mb.
Click to expand...

I was just saying Pingdom cannot be trusted to what they say. well how can you trust a company that states they never have false positives, if 1 of their stations say a server is down then the server is down in their eyes regardless if you can prove otherwise.

so for Pingdom to say average website is less than 1mb then it must be true because Pingdom says it is.

this is not evidence that it is true.
 
easyhostmedia said:
I was just saying Pingdom cannot be trusted to what they say....so for Pingdom to say average website is less than 1mb then it must be true because Pingdom says it is.
Click to expand...

But they don't say "website" and neither did I. Its "web page." Another case of you misquoting/misinterpreting
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
Collabora said:
But they don't say that and neither did I
.
.
.
Click to expand...

funny thing with forums, in that posts are their to be read, yes that is exactly what you stated

Collabora said:
What is the average web site size on your server? What more evidence do you want than that?

If you look at pingdom you will see the average size of a web page is less than 1 mb. A 2 gb site would be more than 2,000 pages. If the site is database and script driven then a lot of the content is generated on the client side, thus making the 2,000 page site smaller, the size of the db being smaller than the sum total of the pages it can generate if those pages were static. Thus a 2gb site is relatively large

A WP site starts at about 35 mb -- and a lot of them don't seem to get much larger.

Another point of evidence: its the one thing no one has disagreed with, of all the times I've mentioned it.
Click to expand...

this is not evidence as i have stated, the info Pingdom give cant be trusted
 
easyhostmedia said:
funny thing with forums, in that posts are their to be read, yes that is exactly what you stated



this is not evidence as i have stated, the info Pingdom give cant be trusted
Click to expand...

No its not....you should use the forum tools to quote me, not your hand....as you finally did. Now review your errors and then ask me the correct question. Or you can look at your server for the evidence, as originally suggested, instead of wasting time misquoting me on side issues.
 
Last edited:
i'd say partialy true i mean software and hardware solutions have been developped to allow a system to expand i think of cloud infrastructure, load balancing, storage etc...but keep in mind the fact that as long as we use physical equipments there will be a limit.
 
I don't really understand the question but cloud infrastructures are becoming more common which is nice for growth.

If you know about your size limit then it's not needed and can cause issues. Nothing is faster than a straight up SSD XEON monster with a fast network in my book.
 
dwhs said:
I don't really understand the question but cloud infrastructures are becoming more common which is nice for growth.

If you know about your size limit then it's not needed and can cause issues. Nothing is faster than a straight up SSD XEON monster with a fast network in my book.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, the SSD drives particularly on VPS's make a big difference for for the type of sites normally put on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top