I used all my bandwidth!

[Steve_Racer]

I used up all my bandwidth :( .. success caught me off guard and i wasnt expecting the kind of traffic i got... here are the details:

I exceeded my 5 GB/month limit :(

http://www.visualcave.com/images/bandwidth_oct2001.gif

Unfortunately if this growing trend in bandwidth usage continues i will have to move to a 300 GB transfer/month rackserver

[Steve_Racer]

should i shut down until next month so as to avoid more overage charges or should i ride out the storm so as to keep my user base up?

[Bob]

Hi Steve,

I believe you are referring to a FutureQuest hosted site, if so you could just upgrade to a Silver package, which is only $10.00 more a month and most likely cover the extra Bandwidth and still keep your site rolling
:QTcar:

Hope this helps,
Bob

[Deb]

Hmm, if you're just going over the 5GB limit I would suggest upgrading to a larger package to start with. It's much more cost effective than a 300GB Dedicated at this stage and usually better than shutting down. Ultimately the choice is yours and depends on your site's requirements as well as your ability to maintain those requirements.

The Silver Package is only $10 more per month yet it allows for 5GB more bandwidth than the Basic. I'd take a moment to review the Community Full Packages available to see if they could hold you over a while prior to going to a dedicated solution.

Deb
- The right track but a journey still ahead.

[Deb]

errrr -- What Bob said :P

[Mandi]

That's a ton of bandwidth, compared to your pageviews . . . could we take a look at your site (provide a link) and see if there are some plausible ways for you to trim your bandwidth consumption? Lots of us have been in this boat before.

[Rich]

I would agree with Deb and Bob that a package upgrade should be your first consideration.

I would assume from your comments that this is your first month of production with this site? It is also important to note that 17 days of data does not a trend make. You will need at least 3-6 *months* of data to determine whether you have a "growth" trend or not.

I also agree with Mandi that an analysis of your page views vs. bytes used indicates that there is little correlation to the two. However, if this is a new site undergoing design changes, this would account for this fact.

p.s. feel free to divert all your excess traffic to one of my sites. :)

Rich

[chrisheng]

Originally posted by Rich:


p.s. feel free to divert all your excess traffic to one of my sites. :)



That's a good one! :)

Chris

[thor]

Stumbled upon this, more curious about the outcomes. Even on a "slow' day 3 megabytes per pageview?

The big single day jump might mean someone's banging the server, but I can't conceive of a site with this bandwidth to visits ratio, unless it's a download site of some sort (mp3, software(z), and so on or serving up video/audio.

Upgrading the account is one temporary solution, but this pattern would scare the bejesus out of me. Bandwidth is DANGEROUS, since there is no limit -- liability is infinite (been there long ago with another ISP - paid for the tee-shirt.)

I have a feeling FQ's looked into this already,but I AM curious as to the details of the traffic.

PS. Who actually WANTS this kind of traffic?

[Rich]

PS. Who actually WANTS this kind of traffic?

Only those that can afford it. Which means any site which uses traffic to convert visitors into customers. There is a direct correlation between visitors/pageviews/bandwidth and revenue. To maximize revenue (and hence profit) you can either increase the visitor-to-sales conversion ratio or increase traffic, or both. :)

Rich

[Jeff]

...but I can't conceive of a site with this bandwidth to visits ratio, unless it's a download site of some sort (mp3, software(z), and so on or serving up video/audio.

PS. Who actually WANTS this kind of traffic?

I can think of lots of sites:

1.) Big ticket items for sale. A VMRL model or a video might go a long way to selling something, and if the profit is substantial enough, why not? For example pictures of a 45' powerboat are one thing, but a video of it in motion inspires an excitement which cannot be matched. I can think of lots of other items where this would be the case as well.
2.) Things that require bandwidth because of their nature (e.g. a band website with sound clips to download or a software author providing a demo which might be 10-25 megs...I don't think there's any better way to sell software than a trial edition for download with either save disabled or time limited.)
3.) Resource site which offers large PDF reference files/manuals/etc. or things like CAD blocks, textures, or 3D models for download.
4.) Artist showing video or audio which can't be appreciated fully as stills or shorter clips.

--just didn't want the 'z' to be applied simply because someone is using bandwidth.

[thor]

Okay, I understand page views/unique visits and the merits of traffic (been around this game a long time). I suppose there are situations where one would be happy with 82 page views and 312 megabytes of bandwidth, provided someone is paying for what is transfered.

...but not many. The bandwidth issue has driven thousands of sites under, since their income can't support their usage fees. I'm betting that this individual doesn't have a purchase/page view ratio that can support escalating bandwidth.

In fact, I'd tend to think this ratio of pageviews/bandwidth probably isn't a sloppy coding thing, even, but indicates something "peculiar" going on (and I won't define that). Some of those things could be perfectly reasonable (real audio, video content, large download site for freeware, that kind of thing). Other possibilities could be using the ftp function to distribute...well..."things".

I could be wrong of course. Heck, my site gets a log more action than that pageview wise, has a fair amount of graphic content, serves up some graphics to affiliates, and I don't CLOSE to those ratios.

So, I don't want 3 megabyte per page view traffic, unless each of those visits is paid somehow, and paid substantially. Even if you are selling things like electronic products (ie. ebooks), you're not going to have a high sales/view ration. (I do that but don't use FQ to do it) for bandwidth reasons).

[thor]

Hi, Jeff...just say your response which popped up just after my response.

I understand your point here. Even if you are correct it's likely not going to be a sustainable business model (I'm working on a book outline that looks at these things so it's on my mind).

Big ticket item...sure. But let's start figuring this. What's the sales/view ratio? It has to be infinitessimally small, given the current Internet climate.

If this site is legitimate along the lines you suggest, increasing bandwidth limits are only a real temporary solution. If we've learned one thing during the Internet crash it's that sites with high traffic is worse than useless unless they generate income way above the cost of that traffic.

Most small business just can't operate that way. My philosophy is to generate traffic UP TO A POINT, and that the traffic be targeted and proivde income to me in proportion to the costs of getting the business. (cost of customer acquisition).

I don't want huge visit levels, neither do I want traffic at that ratio of bandwidth to visits.

I'm not pointing fingers at this individual, but if it's a legitimate thing (and it well could be) I'm interested in the business process involved, simply for my own education. I've never seen something work at this level, and I'd like to find one.

If anyone out there is running a small business with big bandwidth requirements and making it work (i.e. making mony on it) feel free to contact me, since it's part of my research for my next book.

[Rich]

If anyone out there is running a small business with big bandwidth requirements and making it work (i.e. making mony on it) feel free to contact me, since it's part of my research for my next book.

Thor, I think I missed the point of your original "who would want this" question. There are two equations involved here:

#1 - conversion rate: sales/visits (or sales/pageviews since this is easier to obtain and just as good a metric over time.)

#2 - bytes/pageview

I would agree with you that no one wants to maximize #2 and everyone wants to maximize #1.

#1 and #2 ARE directly correlated for most sites. If you increase #2 you will decrease #1. Conversely, if you want to increase #1, work on decreasing #2. #2 leads to longer loading pages and distractions to the main point of the site (making a sale). The longer your pages take to load, the fewer sales you will make. And, the more "toys" (flash, interactive applets, etc) you have that are not directly related to "making the sale", the more visitors and fewer buyers you will get.

Rich

[thor]

Ok, Rich, I think we're on the same wavelength. Sorry if I wasnt' making myself clear.

[Steve_Racer]

its car show videos, drag racing videos, drifting videos. They are all legitimate (to whoever said i was hosting warez)

but after long consideration im going to "thin" the video library because i have ~45 MB of videos available for download.