🚀 go-pugleaf

BUMBLEBEE BUZZ:

  Note that this logic holds true only if all or most of
the images and sounds are used all or most of the time. If
the point of the image and sound set is to offer a variety
out of which only a portion at a time is used, especially
for customised pages, then the disk space allotment is more
important than the bandwidth allotment, depending on what
exactly is needed of bandwidth ("transfer", actually) or
disk space.

  Geometric Engineer

  P.S. The small nitpick is that the "bandwidth" is how much
data at a time can go out the pipe or is allowed to go out the
pipe (per second, say, at peak, and per hour on average), and
the "transfer" is the total data out the pipe from some specific
account during some set time such as a month. It's an apparently
common practice to use "bandwidth" as an inaccurate synonym for
"transfer", as in "bandwidth allotment" or even "bandwidth limit",
when it'd be much better to say "transfer allotment" or "transfer
limit per month/whatever".

  (Naturally, the more data available for transfer in an account,
the more the typical webmaster will push both bandwidth and transfer
limitations (either imposed by the ISP, or inherent to the equipment
of the ISP, who must juggle these limited resources between all of
the hosted accounts)).

  Geometric Engineer

michael lefevre <michael.news@michaellefevre.com> wrote in message news:<a2d7ct$102mlg$3@ID-106624.news.dfncis.de>...
> In article <O8TZ6bEUlhS8EwqL@atomor.demon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan wrote:
> > In article <a2cv5r$10lj4c$1@ID-106624.news.dfncis.de>, michael lefevre 
> > <michael.news@michaellefevre.com> writes
> >>i don't see
> >>that would have a huge impact on routing, name servers and all the rest
> >>of that stuff...
> > 
> > Let me try to explain it a slightly different way...
> > 
> > Giving you some example figures,  the  cost of all that investment (or 
> > at least servicing the capital required) plus the ongoing running cost 
> > is (say) �10,000 per month (note we're not talking about disk costs).
> > 
> > If an ISP's infrastructure supports 1000 subscribers with 10M disk 
> > space, each paying �10 per month then the ISP will break even 
> > financially. Increase each subscriber's webspace allocation to 20M then 
> > there will be a requirement for more bandwidth (there's a direct 
> > correlation between diskspace allocation and required bandwidth).
> [snip stuff following from more bandwidth]
> 
> the point i was trying to make was that if the bandwidth limits didn't
> increase, then all that stuff wouldn't necessarily follow...
> 
> some providers go as far as to offer "unlimited" disk space for their
> hosting... they make that viable by having bandwidth limits - in theory,
> people could upload silly amounts of stuff, but there wouldn't much point
> because nobody could get it down again...
> 
> in fact, compared to Demon (including Demon's commercial space), most
> hosting providers offer more diskspace compared to the bandwidth limits,
> so it is the bandwidth that is the limiting factor...