9 ms·
To hit 250TB in a month, the person would need to do 809Mbps (assuming a 30 day month). I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using
by mdasen 4y ago
To hit 250TB in a month, the person would need to do 809Mbps (assuming a 30 day month). I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity, but I also agree that stated limits are better.
That would be $16,691 worth of transfer from AWS (US East pricing for 250TB to the internet). I'm not arguing that AWS isn't overcharging, just putting up a comparison. Even at $0.01/GB, that would be $2,560.
They should probably just say 50TB with overages at $0.005/GB or something like that. They are offering 20TB on their cloud servers so 50TB on the dedicated seems reasonable and $0.005/GB for overages is less than you'll get almost anywhere else while still probably enough for Hetzner to make a profit.
- thexa4 4y agoThey did have traffic caps a while back but explicitly abolished them.
- thegeekpirate 4y agoYep, it was 20TB from what I recall.
- worldofmatthew 4y agoAWS pricing is a rip-off.
- contingencies 4y ago... and their systems are designed to make controlling it difficult to impossible while locking people in to their ecosystem.
- comprev 4y agoFree/cheap to get in, expensive to get out. Your data is held at ransom to some degree.
- booi 4y agoHow are their systems designed to make controlling cost difficult? I've found it exceptionally easy to find places where things are suboptimal and it's always quite clear to me how much something will cost before I do it.
- vorpalhex 4y agoI had an engineer run up a $5k sagemaker bill because they didn't realize "stopped" was different from "terminated". You also can't set a max billing limit (or a soft limit).
- Spivak 4y agoIf you rent a car and it’s still in your possession but turned off they don’t stop charging you.
- pixl97 4y agoWell luckily it's very obvious when I still have a car in my driveway. It's not obvious that a script got caught in a loop and decided to write up a $5000 bill overnight.
- zdragnar 4y agoThe previous post didn't say a script got caught in a loop overnight, it was that the engineer didn't understand the difference between stopped and terminated. Even so, I don't think it is AWS's fault that buggy code was left to run unattended overnight in the example you give.
- pixl97 4y agoRight, it's not AWS's fault that buggy code ran overnight. It is absolutely 100% Amazon's decision to give you little to no tooling to prevent this in many scenarios other than going to their billing department and beg for a correction. I do not use any service that can proceed to bankrupt me for personal use for what could be considered a normal use case. At work I'd pass the issue off to my manager who'd pass it off to a rep and deal with it that way, but there is no way I want to take that responsibility on myself to correct.
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago> They should probably just say 50TB with overages at $0.005/GB or something like that. I fully agree. People use more and more bandwidth. It was just a question of time before someone started to use a petabyte a month. "Unlimited" makes no sense unless they are really ready to allow 100% usage of 1Gbps uplink all the time.
- cgriswald 4y agoI think "unlimited" should just stop being used as a marketing term. Even if they were actually offering the ability to fully saturate the link indefinitely, the data is still limited by the link speed. In my opinion, the marketing is way out of alignment with the actual contracts on offer.
- 3np 4y ago> It was just a question of time before someone started to use a petabyte a month Nah, even with fully saturating the link you won't get there.
- iancarroll 4y agoHetzner is probably paying ~$300/mo/Gbps for their transit capacity. While I’m sure this particular account isn’t profitable for them, they’re not losing a boatload of money from it either. Hard to blame the user if they advertise it as unlimited.
- walrus01 4y agoat the size and scale of hetzner an individual 100Gbps IP transit circuit is considerably less costly than $30k a month. more like 5-6k max at a major IX point. this also ignores how much of their traffic is settlement free peering to other adjacent ISPs.
- worldofmatthew 4y agoFrom what I remember; FDC has 100Gbit/s for $4,999/month.
- walrus01 4y agofdc is not a transit provider specialist with POPs in every major global city (as measured by CAIDA ASrank size) similar to Cogent or Telia or level3, which a hosting company like hetzner might become a customer of, rather, it's a hosting company
- worldofmatthew 4y agoIts their resold transit product (their 100G Dedicated Bandwidth Servers are often cheaper).
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago> I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity Why ever not? If you sell someone something but only let them use less than 80% of it, that feels like fraud.
- 13415 4y agoThat's more than a feeling. It's literally bait and switch.
- labster 4y agoI see my Marianne walking away from this deal.
- teej 4y agoThat’s not how anything in the consumer world works. If you want guaranteed volume and throughput, sign a contract for it.
- lazide 4y agoAnd yet, that’s not how data center bandwidth is typically sold. Weird huh? It’s total bait and switch, and probably false advertising/fraud.
- foobiekr 4y agoA lot of colo and DC bandwidth is sold as port speed for the connection with no guarantees at all as to sustained bitrate to any other port including egress.
- nimbius 4y agoIMO hetzner is missing a golden opportunity to offer a dedicated or more powerful colocated data center solution to this client. being able to service the tenants needs should be their only concern. throttling just leaves sour grapes for everyone, and might mask hetzner having capacity issues supporting their workload..cost clearly isn't the problem here.
- foobiekr 4y agoCombining statistical multiplexing, fixed WAN bandwidth and SLAs with penalties are basically a recipe for massive losses.
- bb88 4y ago> Even at $0.01/GB, that would be $2,560. That's still overpriced by a factor of 10. Hetzner overage price for the 10G link is 1 euro / TB or about $0.001/GB. That seems pretty reasonable. So we're really looking at something more like $250/month. https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/general/traffic https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/general/traffic
- prvit 4y agoHetzner still makes a good profit on that $0.001/GB.
- bb88 4y agoI'm guessing a lot of that money is being reinvested into the network. At the point in time their business levels off, they can take profit. Likely in this case, they can't upgrade their network fast enough, I'm guessing. And they don't have the funds to do it. This would be a different story than my local cableco say. They will sell you 5TB of data for $100/mo. Or about $0.02/GB. But that money isn't going into network upgrades. And won't until they're forced to, since that's the cable company business model and has been for decades.
- rowanG077 4y ago> I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity, but I also agree that stated limits are better. There is in fact a very clearly stated limit. It's unlimited.
- Akronymus 4y agoIf you set some kinda limit, people will be trying to get close to it. Thus actually increasing overall traffic.
- repox 4y ago"Unlimited 1 Gbps" should be unlimited. Otherwise it's downright fraud to label it "unlimited".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- crooked-v 4y ago> I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity I would personally assume that it would include 100% 24/7 (barring reasonable service outages). That's what "unlimited" means.
- romwell 4y agoPeople in this thread: unlimited means what I want it to mean, and today, it means "limited". Why, that's just how the world works! People who own dictionaries: this is a completely idiotic line of thinking. By which I mean "reasonable". Why, is there a problem?
- themitigating 4y agoIf some large American ISP did this people would be at pitchforks. Hetzner gets a defense
- nottorp 4y agoActually all cheap "unlimited" hosting is like that. Someone just noticed it on Hetzner. Next month someone else will notice it on $LARGE_AMERICAN_ISP. Although I bet $LARGE_AMERICAN_ISP will not warn you, but just shut down your site and lock you out of your data.
- tomjen3 4y agoAWS is overcharging badly. I wouldn't even take them seriously if you want to do something with e.g video. Charging per GB is a joke in a world where my (expensive) ISP doesn't even offer anything less than 30/30mb. IMHO Hertzer is the only hosting company that get what business it is in. AWS makes a ton of sense if you need to rent serious iron to do OCR on 100+ GB of scans of corporate documents, you need GPU power to train your AI model, or you are a startup that needs to grow 50% a month. If you are an established company with a normal demand model, AWS will rip you alive.
- NavinF 4y ago> AWS makes a ton of sense if […] you need GPU power to train your AI model, Breakeven time between paying for GPUs, servers, and colo vs GCP was 3 months when I last checked. AWS was even worse. For training, cloud GPUs only make sense if you don’t have anyone on your team that’s familiar with physical infra or if you have a ton of free credits which is fairly common for startups with VC funding.
- tomjen3 4y agoI was assuming that you only needed to train your AI once. AWS is like a hotel. Great if you need it for a couple days, but you are mad if you want to live there indefinitely.
- _tomcat_ 4y agoSo you basically read that as nobody would actually mean "unlimited" or "1Gbps". Do you live your day-to-day telling people lies or what? None of that behavior sounds rational to me. I can only imagine 'what? you thought I was going to paint the ENTIRE house!'
- NavinF 4y agoThat says more about AWS than anything. It’s not hard to get wholesale transit under $0.1/mbps 95%ile. 809Mbps costs $81/mo for a small provider.
- beaugunderson 4y agoI used to work for a visual effects studio in Los Angeles, we setup a Canadian office and wanted to do offsite backups from Canada to LA and from LA to Canada for redundancy. We found a provider who would give us dedicated unmetered 1gbps and then setup a simple rsync. It worked great, we hit 800mbps (the theoretical maximum with TCP overhead) and then 5 days later we got a call from the provider who was absolutely floored that we wanted to actually use the bandwidth we had paid for. Since we had signed a contract they were f'ed but we did come to some agreement in the end. They told us we were affecting all of their other customers.
- walrus01 4y agoNow that is a shitty hosting company, since you told them what you were going to do in advance and wrote a bandwidth commitment into the sales order.
- beaugunderson 4y agoI think it was a classic case of "sales person will do anything to get the deal done, including things that are harmful to their employer"!
- walrus01 4y agoassuming this person is paying at least $200 a month (not $40-50 like for a hetzner server) it's probably not even harmful economically.
- beaugunderson 4y agoNot sure if you mean me or the OP; for us this was a LONG time ago so if memory serves (and it might not) I think we were paying $2,000+/month.
- londons_explore 4y agoA better way to do it is to simply prioritize traffic in order of whoever has used least traffic this month. So if a link is congested and a packet has to be dropped, then it is dropped from whichever user has sent the most packets in the last 30 days. The end result is light users will get great service. Heavy users will start to see congestion at busy times, but will still be able to download as much as they like, contending with other heavy users at busy times. Actual implementation can consist of say 10 QOS queues, where each customer is assigned a queue based on their decile of traffic sent in the last 30 days. Ideally you'd do strict priority on the queues, but I actually find it works better to say each queue has 2 packets delivered for each one of the queue below. That ensures that if a low use customer has a big burst of traffic, other clients still get a few packets delivered, which helps flow control adapt better. Also, rather than just ranking on 30 day traffic volumes, it works better to rank on 30 day traffic, plus 7 day traffic, plus 24 hour traffic, plus 1 hour traffic. That effectively means traffic sent in the last hour is counted 4x. That means users get faster feedback. Do this and your company gets better utilization of network hardware too - every link will be 95+% full all the time. Thats better than the traditional model of building for peak usage and having links sit idle at 3am. There are plenty of customers who would love to use that cheap 3am capacity!
- itsthecourier 4y agoDo I love your answer, nice weighting bro
- jwlake 4y agoThe correct thing is to just token throttle to the max you're willing to offer for the fixed price. Then when a small minority figure out 1Gbps really is like 100Mbps, then whatever.