95 percentile billing system is bogus

[Vector]

Hi All

Rich got a hold of me with a question on this type of billing and thought I would answer it here to enlighten people on what this is all about and why alot of hosts use this method of billing. They want to take your money

I will use factious numbers as an example to prove the points


Take the MRTG graph of one server on a network for example. See below

As you can see on the graph, the machine spikes to nearly 6mbps. However, the average is only 2.764mbps - this you can see on the graph, but hosts have a script that monitors the server and thus they know this number. Also, this graph is a fair representation of the traffic this server does everyday.

Last month this server did a total of 549.5005GB in data transfer. That resulted in a bandwidth charge of $1813.35.

Let's use $800 per 1mbps for the following examples.

At a hosting provider who charges based on line size needed, this customer would have to purchase a 6mbps line. Using $800 per 1mbps, this is a charge of $4800 per month.


At a hosting provider who charges based on the 95th percentile of usage, this customer gets billed at 3.784mbps. This costs $3011.20 per month. (95th percentile billing explanation - take an average of the traffic for the past five minutes every five minutes. at the end of the month you have a few thousand traffic samples. Take the top 5% of them and throw away. The very next highest sample is what you are billed at.)

At a hosting provider who charges based on average usage, this customer gets billed at 2.764mbps. This is a monthly fee of $2211.20.

The reason that nearly every other billing system costs more is simply because internet traffic is never a constant thing. Thus for a few hours on one day, you may have a massive amount of surfers (traffic) visit your site for a short period of time, but then traffic levels drop down when the rush is over. There are too many variables in the traffic matrix to count and this is why traffic management is not an exact science.

I note that you used the old standard 330GB per 1mbps of line speed. While this is a true number based on that line speed, it is virtually impossible to actually utilize a 1mbps line so perfectly that it pulls the full 330GB over the course of a standard month. Providers who like to use this number are those who sell based on line speed because it looks attractive. IE: with a 6mbps line, you can transfer 1980GB per month - that comes out to a cost of only $2.40 per GB!!! I can tell you this is bogus. My example above proves this.

So all make sure you're being billed for what you use even though the host says that the 95 percentile is saving you money they are just padding there pockets. Pay per gig if you can. You will save big coin in the run of a month and in a year hell you can buy your own server with the money you were paying to the host on the 95 percentile billing system.

http://www.vector-force.com/banners/mrtg1day.gif


Be cool all

[breest]

Wow, I never knew that, are you sure that (most) host do that. That would be a serious rip off!

-Breest

[Much0S]

Vector is right, this is what I try to make clear to my clients too!

Perhaps Vector is dutch too? I know wolfshade is http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Average usage is by far best for 99% of the ppl... even if you want to cap your expensive, you can do that with average - just ask your host to install a throttling module.

I hope one day ppl understand that $800 for 1 mbit AVERAGE use connection is so much cheaper & better than $600 foor 1mbit CAPPED connection.

Don't even let me start on 90/95% percentile billing method http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif It's just plane ripoff http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Grtz,
Much0S

[Crysty]

Vector, I agree, paying per gig is the way to go.
But.
When a host buys some more lines, T1, T3's, OC's , they have to pay entire line, let's say 1mb/s.
If they charge their customers per gig, they will lose money, because they will be charged 330gig by their carrier but they will charge their customers less than a half.
I think this is why many hosts are selling mb/s, to cover their asses
I might be wrong, any other post regarding this issue is appreciated

[Much0S]

Hi Cristy,

You are right, hosts buy from major companies like level3 - witht hem they can either pay for capacity (thus per mb/s) or peek (thus 95% method).

Yes we are loosing money this way, yes we would probably make more profit by charging flat (per mb/s) or 95% method BUT we think that the way to go with hosting is user orientated, not profit orientated.

Because we try to give the user the best deal, we think that charging on average usage (thus effectively per gig) is the way to go.

Again what really hurts us is that some ppl just do not understand that a 1mbit/s line is not the equal of 300 gigs uncapped at full speed http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/frown.gif

So I hope with this post that more ppl understand http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Coke]

Sorry, but you seem to forget that 1mb/s capped bandwidth is usually a lot less expensive than $800. You can't compare average prices to capped or 95th percentile prices 1:1.
Capped bandwidth prices should always be below $500 or less / 1mb/s (which results in a per gig price of ABOUT(!) $2 / GB (0.5mb/s capped bandwidth is ABOUT 120-130GB per month on average)) and taking such a value you'd be billed $3000 for a mb/s line, however you also forget the advantage of a capped line which is that you don't need to purchase full 6mb/s line. If you've a 5mb/s line you should be fine off with peaks to 6mb/s without you noticing any slowdown. That way you can keep your bandwidth prices under control and don't need to worry about staying or not staying below a 3mb/s average.

And sorry, but you should never try to limit a server's bandwidth with a throttling module.

But as always, the bandwidth price is not the only thing you need to consider when deciding for or against a host.

[Groovy]

seems not everyone thinks the same about this:0)
i only got some virtual hosting...

[Coke]

I've to disagree.

Most hosts pay for their lines in full or 'cap' their OC3s or whatever line type to a certain mbit/s amount.

It sounds great if a host says they're not trying to make profit but I wouldn't believe in such a saying http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif After all it's a business and a business not making any profit is going to be out of business quite soon.

[Much0S]

I did not say I was not trying to make a profit ofcourse I want $$$! I just said I didn't want to make profit by walking over ppl like some do. I want to make profit by supplying stuff which I truly believe are good...

There's NOTHING wrong with throttling bandwidth.

And I didn't say 1 mbit average costs $800 - that's just the price vector said, as I don't want to spam in any way I just kept his price.. To be honest I think we can be a little cheaper than this, but that's beside the issue here.

Coke: you only calculate bandwith price, forget hardware/software & support for both.

BTW: I'm a firm believer that 90-95% of all ppl can be easily of with a good virtual host (it's ridiculous everybody is buying dedicateds http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif ) - I believe that up to point of about 1500 gigs a month you can better find a good virtual host.

[Due]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Much0S:

BTW: I'm a firm believer that 90-95% of all ppl can be easily of with a good virtual host (it's ridiculous everybody is buying dedicateds http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif ) - I believe that up to point of about 1500 gigs a month you can better find a good virtual host.</font>

You are joking right?
1500 gigs = 5 mbit / AVERAGE usage.
with 5 MBIT / AVERAGE usage you will peak at around 7-10 MBIT. 10 people on the same server (most hosts put 40+ but in this example we say 10) peaking at around 7-10 MBIT would be aprox 85 MBIT going through the server in the peak hours.
You must have some DAMN BIG SERVERS if you belive it can handle 2 X the size of a T3 in peak hours, with all kind of CGI scripts etc on them.
How long time have you been working in the webhosting biz. ?

[Much0S]

The hosting company which I'm part of exists over 2.5 years. The adult part is about 6 months old.

And as I said join GOOD virtual host - GOOD virtual hosts LOOK at what kind of sites are hosted where...

And you don't know what kind of machines we have http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif You're probably comparing our servers to a standard (shitty) dynamichosting webserver... needless to say our servers perform a lot better, because of better hard and software...

Furthermore the fact that it's called 'virtual' doesn't mean you're hosted with 40 other guys, the only thing it means is that you don't have to worry about the hard and software, that the hosting company takes care of that. Unfortunately 'virtual' hosting has gotten a bad name because of the fact of ppl going to a $14.95 virtual host provider, get fucked, then go to a $600 dedicated provider and say 'Hey this is a lot better' ... ofcourse it is! ... but have you ever tried a $300 virtual host provider? A virtual host provider who knows what he does...

Anyways i am affraid this is starting to get a little bit spammy so let's stop http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Due]

MuchOS&gt;
You say shitty dynamichosting servers? that's funny you can get what you want with them. but they are still shitty?
What kind of servers are you using with your virtual hosting and what kind of software are you using?

[richard]

MuchOS, have you and dynamichosting had a bit of a lovers tiff or something, you are the only person i know to put them down..

?

[Much0S]

Hi Richard,

2 Things:
I did not say dynamic hosting was bad I just said you can't compare their servers with top line servers, which is not that surprising at the prices they calculate.

Second, I started my hosting company (the adult part of it that is) because I thought dynamic wasn't good enough for me.... my biggest problem with them at the time was (and I believe still is) that their international speed sucks.

That's all kids, now go out and play again nicely http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Much0S

[Due]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Much0S:
Hi Richard,

2 Things:
I did not say dynamic hosting was bad I just said you can't compare their servers with top line servers, which is not that surprising at the prices they calculate.

Second, I started my hosting company (the adult part of it that is) because I thought dynamic wasn't good enough for me.... my biggest problem with them at the time was (and I believe still is) that their international speed sucks.

That's all kids, now go out and play again nicely http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Much0S</font>

You still did not say what kind of top line servers you have.

[Much0S]

Why Due, you interested in moving to us?

Perhaps in your all knowing-ness you can better tell me what server I have?

[Due]

No can't say that I'm interested in moving my sites to you.
But since you call my server a crap and your own server a good server some hardware info would be cool to know what you offer so I mayby can learn something in the feature http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/wink.gif Or mayby you where just throwing out empty words to make your hosting look better? http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/confused.gif
P.S. Since you where the one stated I have crappy servers and you have good servers mayby you should tell me what I have since you must know http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Due]

P.S.
I'm not dynamichosting I just use their crappy servers http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/tongue.gif

[Much0S]

How the fuck can I know what servers you use? I just said that prior to starting our ADULT hosting service we checked out dynamichosting, but didn't go for them for the two reasons I mentioned. We checked them out because so many ppl were praising them, later we found out the real thing: some big webmasters praised them (for $$$ ofcourse) and just about everyone else followed them... (like sheep)

Don't take my words wrong, I'm simply stating these things:
- I didn't go for dynamichosting because at the time (and still I believe) I didn't like their hardware, nor their speed. (in the US/Canada perfect speed, outside poor speed)
- Although praised by many I found out many of those recomendations were paid for.

Now I don't want richard all over me telling me that he is not being paid or anything, i'm just saying that at the time ppl were being paid and that 80% of the recommendations were of these ppl.

Now as always unfortunately this discussion has gone way beyond its point ... read the first message, it's a good message... the lower you go the more insignificant the messages get... too bad, perhaps this board is getting downhill?

[Dje]

Hi MuchOS,

I do not post on the boards often nowadays, but I thought I should get in on this discussion, since it is always good to learn new stuff about hosting. I visited your hosting website (which people just will find themselves if they spend 2 minutes looking for) and was wondering what part of the hardware you are stating is making adifference in your server. Do not take this as an attack, but as someone really interested to know how to improve its own server (and no, I do not run a hosting company http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif). Because frankly, I do not see anything extraordinary about this:
"Our server is a superfast AMD Athlon K7 800 MHz with 512 Mb 133 MHz SDRAM and a Quantum Atlas 18.4 Gb SCSI harddisk"
Where's the catch that makes that a "top-of-the-line" server? I am sure many people would like to know...

Your truly,
Dje

[Due]

MuchOS&gt;
I'm asking 1 thing.
WHAT KIND OF SERVERS DO YOU HAVE AND WITH WHAT KIND OF SOFTWARE?
You wrote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And you don't know what kind of machines we have You're probably comparing our servers to a standard (shitty) dynamichosting webserver... needless to say our servers perform a lot better, because of better hard and software...
</font>
Now surely you can backup your own post right?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Now as always unfortunately this discussion has gone way beyond its point ... read the first message, it's a good message... the lower you go the more insignificant the messages get... too bad, perhaps this board is getting downhill?
</font>
Yeah it is amazing how people bad mouth other things saying they are better and then they won't even backup what they are saying after that. It is really lowering quality of the board when everybody go badmouthing everybody to make themself look better http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/frown.gif

[richard]

Much, not talking just about here, but about all the times on icq as well when we have talked about stuff.

Its not a big deal or anything mate, just wondered if there was some history between you and them?

My server pings at 125ms from the uk.

C:\WINDOWS&gt;ping www.qbabes.com (http://www.qbabes.com)

Pinging www.qbabes.com (http://www.qbabes.com) [63.214.18.50] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 63.214.18.50: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=237
Reply from 63.214.18.50: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=237
Reply from 63.214.18.50: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=237
Reply from 63.214.18.50: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=237

Ping statistics for 63.214.18.50:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 124ms, Maximum = 137ms, Average = 127ms

Which is faster than many i have randomly pinged.

Due, what does it ping like from Denmark?

[Much0S]

Hi,

The website is outdated, the AMD system is just one of our many systems now... My friend Tim still hasn't found time to update it... Surely you understand we use more hardware http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Furthermore top-of-the-line hardware means only using A-BRANDS, thus well established brands like quantum, 3com, etc....

Richard: you should be old and wise enough to know that ping only tells you so much... what do we ping at?

[Due]

Rich from here it say:
C:\WINDOWS&gt;ping qbabes.com

Pinger qbabes.com [63.214.18.50] med 32 byte data:

Svar fra 63.214.18.50: byte=32 tid=151ms TTL=244
Svar fra 63.214.18.50: byte=32 tid=137ms TTL=244
Svar fra 63.214.18.50: byte=32 tid=151ms TTL=244
Svar fra 63.214.18.50: byte=32 tid=124ms TTL=244

Ping-statistikker for 63.214.18.50:
Pakker: Sendt = 4, modtaget = 4, tabt = 0 (0% tab),
Gennemsnitlig tid for rundtur i millisekunder:
Mindst = 124ms, størst = 151ms, gennemsnitlig = 140ms

Looks very descent I would say http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Much0S]

again ppl: REMEMBER WHAT THIS THREAT STARTED WITH? PLZ KEEP IT AT THAT!

If you want a big discussion about dynamichosting being the best host in the world open a new thread...

[Due]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Much0S:
again ppl: REMEMBER WHAT THIS THREAT STARTED WITH? PLZ KEEP IT AT THAT!

If you want a big discussion about dynamichosting being the best host in the world open a new thread...</font>

Again you where the one starting the discussion about good / bad hosting where you talked down about another host saying you where better and now you are avoiding the questions saying it has nothing to do with the subject

[Much0S]

Without being rude Due

Fuck Off (as always)

The only thing I said I started my company because I did not like dynamic...

If you want to know more about dynamic YOU research... I invested a lot of time and effort in investigating a lot, now if you state something different than my investigation stated, you may ofcourse, but I certainly do not believe you... perhaps that some other ppl do.

And as always you drag and overreact to everything...

As I said before, and comon ppl follow me (otherwise Due will suffer from his psychological desease):
"Due you are the master man! You truely know everything! I'm ashamed I ever said something you didn't like - how could I? What was I thinking? I'm so sorry Due - ofcourse you're right!"

Feel better now?

[Coke]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">to a standard (shitty) dynamichosting webserver</font>

I think you were indeed saying dyanmichosting's servers are bad by such a saying, or what does shitty mean for you?

Although they're a competition for me I've to say I've not heard of many people being dissatisfied with their service and their network is fast even from Europe.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There's NOTHING wrong with throttling bandwidth.</font>

True, but throttling bandwidth with a throttling module is about the worst thing you could do to a server.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Coke: you only calculate bandwith price, forget hardware/software & support for both.</font>

This topic is about bandwidth not about hardware prices, or am I wrong?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">BTW: I'm a firm believer that 90-95% of all ppl can be easily of with a good virtual host (it's ridiculous everybody is buying dedicateds ) - I believe that up to point of about 1500 gigs a month you can better find a good virtual host.</font>

You don't want me to believe that you should use a virtual host with a usage of 5mbit/s? Sorry, but what's the point of that? If I take a per gig price of $3/GB you'd pay $4500 while with vector's $800 / mbit/s pricing you'd pay only $4000 (yes, I know it's only the bandwidth). I don't even want to take into account that you're safer and faster on a dedicated box.

Just my thoughts on this.

[richard]

you ping at about 60ms - that is your iephosting.com domain.

Your prices look good, i admit. However, i worked out that with my 4mbs line (capped) i could afford your 2mbs average (give or take a few hundred bucks).

I'm not bitching at you dude, like i said, i just wondered what your history with dynamic hosting was.

Due's naturally wanting to defend the host he uses, if Due thinks the host is shit, then he looks like a dumbass (well, more of a dumbass) thats all.

Regarding the topic, if you can get your capped b/w cheaply, and your traffic is reasonably stable (does not fluctuate too much) then you might be better off with capped.

But, problem is when you don't use it for a few days for example, which is why this topic started when i contacted Vector (thanks for posting) about a guy who used lots of b/w for half a month, then 0 for the 2nd half, but will get billed the whole month for the first months rate. Sucks http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/frown.gif.


In order of most expensive to least:

Per Gig = more expensive, but does not rip you off at all, you pay for what you use.

95 %ile = Perhaps better than capped because it takes off 5% of your top bursts, then bills you for the next highest burst. This enables you to burst and not be restricted by limited to a fixed throughput. However, if you have a couple of days of high traffic, it can screw you for the rest of the month if the other days are alot lower.

capped= cheapest, but you will not use the maximum you can use. Also means you do not have any bandwidth surprises, you pay a fixed amount, if you need more bandwidth, it all gets slowed down during peak times, as no more than your x mps can be transfered at one time.

average = expensive, bills you at a per mps rate, calculated at your average mps usage - like per gig.

Thread closed http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif