I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with <2GB of
files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw that they offer
"500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's dramatically more than the 5GB
my current host gives. Not to mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput. Oh
boy. I began to get visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z drives
on my PCs, etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a call. The
rep on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for "web-accessible"
files only, that are part of my websites, and that I cannot use the space
for stored files. So then, I could use the 500GB for thousands of pages of
pictures of my cat, but can't use the space to park backup files? That
just ain't right. Is it reasonable to advertise "500GB web space" without
adding that little disclaimer? Or should I just know better?

"Steve" <nomail@for.me> wrote in message
news:C3kGi.47045$jJ5.20067@newsfet03.ams...
>I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with <2GB of
>files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw that they offer
>"500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's dramatically more than the 5GB
>my current host gives. Not to mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput. Oh
>boy. I began to get visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z drives
>on my PCs, etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a call. The
>rep on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for "web-accessible"
>files only, that are part of my websites, and that I cannot use the space
>for stored files. So then, I could use the 500GB for thousands of pages
>of pictures of my cat, but can't use the space to park backup files? That
>just ain't right. Is it reasonable to advertise "500GB web space" without
>adding that little disclaimer? Or should I just know better?


1. Buy an $8 domain name
2. Make a webpage that links to your files
3. Upload your files
4. Password protect that page
5. Sue the company for false advertising when they shut you down.

--Tina

Take a look at www.servage.net
360GB with 3600GB monthly data transfer for 6,35Euro...
and you can use it as a storage...

And if you use coupon code "wanip" (without "), you get additional 25GB

biondo

"Steve" <nomail@for.me> wrote in message
news:C3kGi.47045$jJ5.20067@newsfet03.ams...
>I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with <2GB of
>files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw that they offer
>"500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's dramatically more than the 5GB
>my current host gives. Not to mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput. Oh
>boy. I began to get visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z drives
>on my PCs, etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a call. The
>rep on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for "web-accessible"
>files only, that are part of my websites, and that I cannot use the space
>for stored files. So then, I could use the 500GB for thousands of pages
>of pictures of my cat, but can't use the space to park backup files? That
>just ain't right. Is it reasonable to advertise "500GB web space" without
>adding that little disclaimer? Or should I just know better?
>

"Steve" <nomail@for.me> wrote in message
news:C3kGi.47045$jJ5.20067@newsfet03.ams...
>I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with <2GB of
>files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw that they offer
>"500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's dramatically more than the 5GB
>my current host gives. Not to mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput. Oh
>boy. I began to get visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z drives
>on my PCs, etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a call. The
>rep on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for "web-accessible"
>files only, that are part of my websites, and that I cannot use the space
>for stored files. So then, I could use the 500GB for thousands of pages
>of pictures of my cat, but can't use the space to park backup files? That
>just ain't right. Is it reasonable to advertise "500GB web space" without
>adding that little disclaimer? Or should I just know better?

I think its quite common, and its probably there in their terms and
conditions. Basically by offering 500GB of web space they hope to be able to
grab your attention but they also expect most sites to be only a few MB.
After all, most sites are quite small its only once you get into file
sharing and backup that large data volumes typically are required as
standard - hence why they exclude you from that. In all probability they
couldn't support more than a few sites at 500GB.

Something else to be aware of is the 3.5TB monthly throughput. Some hosts
actually cap you on a daily basis, so they might actually cap you at 115GB
per day (which is still more than most of us would ever dream of using) and
they say 30x115GB/day=3.5TB/month. Of course it could also be that its
actually unmetered but the bandwidth is limited - although with these
numbers I think it works out at the equivalent of 10mbps upload - which
might if they are a small host be their total available bandwidth.

Its also worth looking at whether they have any "reasonable usage" clause.
It might be that you could fit inside all their other requirements but once
your site becomes busy they reserve the option to boot you down to
reasonable usage. This might for example be expressed in terms of cpu time.

BTW if you did fill up 500GB of space with pictures of your cat then you'd
probably find that:
1. You'd have to contact their support a few times because they ran out of
disk space before you reached the 500GB. (Been there!)
2. That it would take you an age - perhaps its me but it always seems to
take longer than an on-paper-calculation says it should to upload even 1GB
of files (say 1000 * 1MB files).
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:

> 2. That it would take you an age - perhaps its me but it always seems to
> take longer than an on-paper-calculation says it should to upload even 1GB
> of files (say 1000 * 1MB files).

That's because your on-paper calculations don't factor in the overhead,
ie. the extra bits that are sent to ensure your data arrives at the
server intact, nor do they factor in the extra communications performed
at the start and end of each file being uploaded.

All-in-all, these things will add a lot more data communications than
you would have anticipated

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.

Dylan Parry wrote:
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>> 2. That it would take you an age - perhaps its me but it always seems to
>> take longer than an on-paper-calculation says it should to upload even 1GB
>> of files (say 1000 * 1MB files).
>
> That's because your on-paper calculations don't factor in the overhead,
> ie. the extra bits that are sent to ensure your data arrives at the
> server intact, nor do they factor in the extra communications performed
> at the start and end of each file being uploaded.
>
> All-in-all, these things will add a lot more data communications than
> you would have anticipated
>

Nor do they figure the delays in ACKing individual packets.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Brian, you got it right. The ixwebhosting TOS has a "fair use" clause which
to me says "we were just kidding" when it comes to their webspace and
throughput promises. In my opinion the come-on is pretty deceptive...

http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos#q4


"Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:WsCdnS0sX5xZ2HfbnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@pipex.net...
> "Steve" <nomail@for.me> wrote in message
> news:C3kGi.47045$jJ5.20067@newsfet03.ams...
>>I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with <2GB of
>>files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw that they offer
>>"500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's dramatically more than the 5GB
>>my current host gives. Not to mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput.
>>Oh boy. I began to get visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z
>>drives on my PCs, etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a
>>call. The rep on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for
>>"web-accessible" files only, that are part of my websites, and that I
>>cannot use the space for stored files. So then, I could use the 500GB
>>for thousands of pages of pictures of my cat, but can't use the space to
>>park backup files? That just ain't right. Is it reasonable to advertise
>>"500GB web space" without adding that little disclaimer? Or should I just
>>know better?
>
> I think its quite common, and its probably there in their terms and
> conditions. Basically by offering 500GB of web space they hope to be able
> to grab your attention but they also expect most sites to be only a few
> MB. After all, most sites are quite small its only once you get into file
> sharing and backup that large data volumes typically are required as
> standard - hence why they exclude you from that. In all probability they
> couldn't support more than a few sites at 500GB.
>
> Something else to be aware of is the 3.5TB monthly throughput. Some hosts
> actually cap you on a daily basis, so they might actually cap you at 115GB
> per day (which is still more than most of us would ever dream of using)
> and they say 30x115GB/day=3.5TB/month. Of course it could also be that its
> actually unmetered but the bandwidth is limited - although with these
> numbers I think it works out at the equivalent of 10mbps upload - which
> might if they are a small host be their total available bandwidth.
>
> Its also worth looking at whether they have any "reasonable usage" clause.
> It might be that you could fit inside all their other requirements but
> once your site becomes busy they reserve the option to boot you down to
> reasonable usage. This might for example be expressed in terms of cpu
> time.
>
> BTW if you did fill up 500GB of space with pictures of your cat then you'd
> probably find that:
> 1. You'd have to contact their support a few times because they ran out of
> disk space before you reached the 500GB. (Been there!)
> 2. That it would take you an age - perhaps its me but it always seems to
> take longer than an on-paper-calculation says it should to upload even 1GB
> of files (say 1000 * 1MB files).
> --
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>
>
>
>

Steve wrote:
> Brian, you got it right. The ixwebhosting TOS has a "fair use"
> clause which to me says "we were just kidding" when it comes to their
> webspace and throughput promises. In my opinion the come-on is
> pretty deceptive...
> http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos#q4
>
>
> "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:WsCdnS0sX5xZ2HfbnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> "Steve" <nomail@for.me> wrote in message
>> news:C3kGi.47045$jJ5.20067@newsfet03.ams...
>>> I have been shopping around for a new host for my 4 sites (with
>>> <2GB of files total). I came across www.ixwebhosting.com and saw
>>> that they offer "500 GB Web Space" for $6.95/month. That's
>>> dramatically more than the 5GB my current host gives. Not to
>>> mention the 3.5TB of monthly throughput. Oh boy. I began to get
>>> visions of storing hard drive backups, mapped Z drives on my PCs,
>>> etc, etc, to make use of that 500GB. I gave them a call. The rep
>>> on the phone tells me that the 500GB must be used for
>>> "web-accessible" files only, that are part of my websites, and that
>>> I cannot use the space for stored files. So then, I could use the
>>> 500GB for thousands of pages of pictures of my cat, but can't use
>>> the space to park backup files? That just ain't right. Is it
>>> reasonable to advertise "500GB web space" without adding that
>>> little disclaimer? Or should I just know better?
>>
>> I think its quite common, and its probably there in their terms and
>> conditions. Basically by offering 500GB of web space they hope to be
>> able to grab your attention but they also expect most sites to be
>> only a few MB. After all, most sites are quite small its only once
>> you get into file sharing and backup that large data volumes
>> typically are required as standard - hence why they exclude you from
>> that. In all probability they couldn't support more than a few sites
>> at 500GB. Something else to be aware of is the 3.5TB monthly throughput.
>> Some
>> hosts actually cap you on a daily basis, so they might actually cap
>> you at 115GB per day (which is still more than most of us would ever
>> dream of using) and they say 30x115GB/day=3.5TB/month. Of course it
>> could also be that its actually unmetered but the bandwidth is
>> limited - although with these numbers I think it works out at the
>> equivalent of 10mbps upload - which might if they are a small host
>> be their total available bandwidth. Its also worth looking at whether
>> they have any "reasonable usage"
>> clause. It might be that you could fit inside all their other
>> requirements but once your site becomes busy they reserve the option
>> to boot you down to reasonable usage. This might for example be
>> expressed in terms of cpu time.
>>
>> BTW if you did fill up 500GB of space with pictures of your cat then
>> you'd probably find that:
>> 1. You'd have to contact their support a few times because they ran
>> out of disk space before you reached the 500GB. (Been there!)
>> 2. That it would take you an age - perhaps its me but it always
>> seems to take longer than an on-paper-calculation says it should to
>> upload even 1GB of files (say 1000 * 1MB files).
>> --
>> Brian Cryer
>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian

you mean it wasn't the 500gig drive you were getting for $6 that gave you a
clue?