Page 9 of 9

Posted: 23 August 08 6:18 pm
by Richary
Came across this one - their shared server plans don't seem to be a ridiculous price.

Posted: 23 August 08 11:41 pm
by caughtatwork
richary wrote:
caughtatwork wrote:There are logistical issues in owning a machine in a state where we have no developers when it comes to reboots and hardware failures.
I don't see a big issue with that. I would be happy to look after a Sydney based machine as an example even though I don't have the coding skills to be a developer, I do have the hardware skills to maintain/repair a computer.
And I am sure that would be the case for most state capitals that someone would be there with the necessary knowledge.
Our work has it's external server for billing etc in the Macquarie Telecom colo in the city.
Oh, it's not a big issue. It's just that if the server was in the ACT then with with the 3 developers NOT being in the ACT, getting someone to bump the machine is a little problematic. Not that it can't be overcome, but it's just one of the things we're chatting about.

Moving data around various machine is a tiresome issue and we would prefer to do it the minimum number of time we have to so we're looking for the best bang for the best buck with the best, simple end result.

We're still chatting, but I expect it won't be too much longer.

Posted: 23 August 08 11:43 pm
by caughtatwork
mtrax wrote:can we try shared server option then if size doesn't fit we can investigate dedicated server.
oh and btw I'm a web dev guy too. :)
That's an option.

As I mentioned above, we'd like to restrict the movement of data to the absolute minimum, so we're trying to work out what would happen under various options. i.e. Owner, colo, rented, shared, etc.

There are so many pros and cons that it's just taking some time to get all the information up and in front of the developers and then to respond.

Some of them have a life (apparently).

Posted: 24 August 08 8:03 am
by ideology
richary wrote:Came across this one - their shared server plans don't seem to be a ridiculous price.
thanks. comments:

shared server: gca would most likely blow the resource limits of a share server. please refer to c@w's comments on page 7 of this thread
gohosting server co-location: GCA is currently using 25GB outgoing, so it would need the $280/month plan = $3,360 pa
dedicated server plan: GCA would need the GoDed2 plan which is $395/month = $4,740 pa

we have just looked at the place where GCA is currently hosted (see first page of this thread), and the prices appear to have come down
you can get a half reasonable machine and pretty much unlimited bandwidth for $200/month = $2,400 pa

Posted: 24 August 08 8:23 am
by ideology
mtrax wrote:I got a reply and it looks hopeful (send email to C@W)..
basically its around $100-$150/ month, but they can offer a better deal for a shared server.
we should probably let them know that it's currently approx 25GB/month, so does the $100-$150/month still stand?

regarding the server, a shared server will probably not be enough. GCA is currently on a shared server and is affecting the other sites. (every time there is a resource problem on this server, it's GCA...) so our advice is for a dedicated server, the bigger the better, but you'd want at least 4GB of RAM, 250GB disk, preferably 2 fast ones, and at least a 2GB processor.

c@w found something like:
c@w wrote:
Intel Xeon Quad Core processor power this machine. With a large cache (8MB) + 4 x 2.40Ghz processor. An absolute power user delight! Now with higher capacity hard disk and more RAM.
Intel Xeon 3220-Quad Core [2.4GHz]
2 x 250GB Hard drive
2,000GB Premium Bandwidth
$269 per month = $3,220 a year.
At the end of the 2nd year, $6,500, third year $10K.
The contrary point to a colo is that the ISP owns the machine and if it breaks, it's their responsibility to fix. No flying interstate kick our own hardware.

Posted: 24 August 08 8:55 am
by CraigRat
(It also needs to be said that if it's a dedicated server provided by the host, we will certainly get better bang for our buck if we keep the servers off-shore as they currently are..... unless we get some kind of sponsorship thigo and subsidisation from an au company....)

Posted: 24 August 08 2:53 pm
by Papa Bear_Left
As far as bandwidth goes, my el-cheapo hosting costs peanuts and would seem to provide more bandwidth than we'd ever use.

I'm on the Deluxe plan: ... sp?ci=9009
So that's 1,500GB/month (of which I usually use 0.0%!)

Obviously, my little personal page is using the same server as dozens or hundreds of others like it, but bandwidth doesn't seem to be the expensive part of the equation.

Posted: 24 August 08 6:15 pm
by CraigRat
The real issue isn't the bandwidth, it's the resources (CPU&RAM)

The database queries etc use a lot of CPU time, and the site would most definitely have issues on most shared host plans (they usually don't tell you about the INODE and CPU/RAM limits till you exceed them )...

I know of more than one site that has been forced off godayddy/hostgator/dreamhost etc through those sites gaining popularity (most of them have significantly less members and hits than GCA too......the limits are quite easy to hit)