guideline for name-based web hosting justification

[Mike Horwath]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 02:16:17PM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 08:27:47AM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 05:35:59PM -0700, Dean Waters wrote:
> > > Why not  get your bandwidth numbers from your access logs?
> > Because that counts bytes transferred.
> 
> Isn't the amount of overhead in protocol and tcp congestion control
> over some large aggregation interval linearly related to the number
> of bytes transferred?  Some percent?
> 
> This suggests you would want to charge a proportionally higher price
> for a measurement that results in smaller numbers.
> 
> Unless what you are suggesting is that you still want to be able to
> charge your customers for any intervals during which your network
> access is decreased due to DOS attacks flung against them.

Nope.

We graph our customers usage of their T1s, colocation, DS3s, and
virtual web hosting and we charge for their usage based on a formula
that is on our web site.  (we don't charge for the top 95th but we
also don't charge for average utilization either)

We do this because we need to charge people for their usage and number
of bytes transferred a month doesn't count right.

ie: 64Kbps 24x7 for 30 days i 20,736,000,000 bytes in a month.

If a customer of ours sustained 64Kbps 24x7x365 I would not care as
that isn't much bandwidth.

But many sites don't do all that much and then spike (like any
business site!), we need to charge for bandwidth over a certain level
(we chose 64Kbps :) to cover usage for these 'peak' periods since we
need to always have bandwidth for the peak usage of *all* of our
customers.

Make sense?

> > Tell me how easy it would be to write code to take the access logs and
> > correlate to bandwidth used over a month, then tell me what it would
> > take to produce this data (which is required for billing) so that it
> > looks like MRTG (so our customers can see their utilization), and can
> > do it for 1500 web sites at over 8GB a day of logs, and be done doing
> > that in a reasonable time (like the same day, or better yet, real
> > time).
> 
> Trivial.

Really?

> I should think any system that can not do it for 30,000 high volume
> web sites on reasonably modern hardware is improperly designed.

Really?

A challenge to yourself to write?


-- 
Mike Horwath           IRC: Drechsau         drechsau at Geeks.ORG
Home: 763-540-6815  1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN  55427
Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself
through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period.