• 0

Server Hosting Costs - Commercial Sites, This Right?

Asked by CoolerUK,

 Share

Question

Proficient

CoolerUK

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

 

this is not really my area so I wanted to ask some for some advice about whether or not these costs are about right because I have been asked to research if we can get a better deal.

 

As it stands the client has 3 commercial websites which combined make about 30-50 transactions a month (steadily growing), product catalogue of about 160 items across the 3 sites

 

Cost breakdown is as follows

 

Web/application server - ?350 a month

Database server - ?350 a month

Image server - ?350 a month

Bandwidth Provision - ?180 per month for 10mb/s

Firewall and Snapshot Back Ups - inclusive

 

total - ?1230 per month

 

3 virtual machines implemended to support all the sites

 

 

Basically I have been tasked at trying to find a better deal and wondered if we are being 'rinsed' at the moment or if that figure looks reasonable?

 

Many thanks in advance.

25 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Collaborator

sh4hb4z

Posted
Posted

I think you've been rinsed - its way overpriced. 30 - 50 transactions a month? How busy is your site that you need three separate servers at ?350 each? Do they have the same spec? Why would you need the same spec for all three if one is just an image server?

 

?180 for bandwidth? Really? How much are you transferring?

 

You've seriously been ripped off.

  • fusi0n and stoo2000
  • Like 2
  • 0
Contributor

1ON

Posted
Posted

Two recommendations,

 

A company like Exponential-e, http://www.exponential-e.com/. Cloud offering is UK based, VMware, HP Blade, EMC storage.

 

Or,

 

Microsoft Azure

 

PM me if you have any questions.

  • 0
Grand Master

game_over

Posted
Posted

Transactions don't really mean anything in regards to performance and bandwidth.. how many hits does it get? how many concurrent users? how many hits do you want or are you aiming for? (i.e how scalable do you need it to be?)

 

How big are the sites? wtf is an image server? and why does it require ?350/month you could get on a CDN for a fraction of the cost and serve images from there...

 

Your not being rinsed, you are being absolutely and completely ripped off and anyone who has recommended this to you needs shooting, if the guy/company your paying recommended this to you this then say no more... always seek independent advice when there is this much money up in the air.

 

To put things into perspective for you: i have a website with over 25,000 hits month, in it's peak days it was getting 50,000 hits month, i run it on a ?85/month server.

  • 0
Grand Master

Kami-

Posted
Posted

Those prices are nuts you can even setup your own high end servers for these prices and rent a place at a server park and that would be probably cheaper lol

Off-topic: lol at 'server park', totally had a mental image of an amusement park based on servers; I think the term you meant to use was 'Data Center' but I won't hold it against you!

  • 0
Grand Master

Seahorsepip Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Off-topic: lol at 'server park', totally had a mental image of an amusement park based on servers; I think the term you meant to use was 'Data Center' but I won't hold it against you!

haha  :rofl:

  • 0
Rising Star

ShadowMajestic

Posted
Posted

You are being completely ripped off.

Even if you get 50.000 hits, you don't need a 350USD server, not by far.

Just a simple search at a good hoster has servers capable of handling well over 50.000 hits per day for as low as 80bucks a month.

Get 5 of em, just for the hell of it and you're still far cheaper then this rip off solution you've been offered.

  • 0
Grand Master

Kami-

Posted
Posted

Wasn't trying to sell. Just stating the facts the way OP explained.

 

Please tell me why "not quite"? No need to kill a mosquito with a bazooka.

You'd want dedicated/VPS server for a business site of scale he has, not 'shared hosting'.

  • 0
Grand Master

wrack

Posted
Posted

Not just traffic to consider, there are a multitude of other considerations.

Again true but the OP hasn't given any specific information on the other factors so I gave that answer based on the initial information. I am sure with a better requirements we all can suggest him/her something better suited to the needs.

  • 0
Grand Master

Kami-

Posted
Posted

Again true but the OP hasn't given any specific information on the other factors so I gave that answer based on the initial information. I am sure with a better requirements we all can suggest him/her something better suited to the needs.

Well on that basis, why are you stating outright that a cheap $10/month service will suit his needs if you don't know the requirements?

 

Besides, anything remotely business transaction related shouldn't live on shared hosting, at all, ever.

  • 0
Community Regular

Reb0ot

Posted
Posted

Hi all,

 

this is not really my area so I wanted to ask some for some advice about whether or not these costs are about right because I have been asked to research if we can get a better deal.

 

As it stands the client has 3 commercial websites which combined make about 30-50 transactions a month (steadily growing), product catalogue of about 160 items across the 3 sites

 

Cost breakdown is as follows

 

Web/application server - ?350 a month

Database server - ?350 a month

Image server - ?350 a month

Bandwidth Provision - ?180 per month for 10mb/s

Firewall and Snapshot Back Ups - inclusive

 

total - ?1230 per month

 

3 virtual machines implemended to support all the sites

 

 

Basically I have been tasked at trying to find a better deal and wondered if we are being 'rinsed' at the moment or if that figure looks reasonable?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

It depends on the amount of traffic going through.

If its low traffic then have both the DB and the web server on the same server. You would save ?350/month on this.

 

If it was me though I would just have it on a VPS platform that would include automatic backups/images, pay max ?100/month for each VPS you need and have more RAM on the DB server than the web server.

 

Contact me directly if you need more help.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By sphbecker · Posted

      If you don't care to read what I said, then you prove my point. Maybe written media is beyond your attention span. Titles are not summaries my friend.
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By +Nik Louch · Posted

      Nobody asked... in fact, I said "I don't care about political leanings"  
    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By Elliot B. · Posted

      TLDR. Here is a far better title (just a basic example): Windows 11 26H2 to allow disabling Web search results
    • Politically funny images of the World

      By Dan~ · Posted

      Restore will get my vote, only if to see if things are any different, doubt it though but Labour and Conservatives too out of touch and same thing over and over and over…, Lib Dem who?
    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2 to finally get one of the most requested features

      By sphbecker · Posted

      There is nothing wrong with this title. You have completely missed the plot when it comes to "clickbait." The issue was never that a title tries to entice you to click, that is how titles have worked for over 100 years. The issue is when the title subverts expectations, getting you to click expecting something that isn't there. The classic clickbait example is "Boyfriend caught cheating, what happens next will shock you," then what happened next is the girlfriend was upset...which is probably the least shocking outcome imaginable. If sounds like what you want is for the titles to be a collection of 10-word summaries that you can skim, get the just of the story, and only click if you want more details. That is not, never has been, and never will be what titles are. You can go all the way back to print newspapers during the great depression and see the same thing. The newspaper was locked in a vending machine, all you can see is the headline, you choose to put in 5¢ to buy the paper and read the rest if you want. Those headlines were written in a way to sell the paper, not just to provide a summery. Here are two actual headlines from that time, "Wall Street Lays an Egg," or "Stocks Hit Bottom?" Maybe you'd say something like "it was wrong then and it's still wrong now." Okay, fine opinion to have, but it isn't like Neowin is doing something unjurnalistic, they are just following the age-old standards for written media.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      mnsgroup earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      525
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      199
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      neufuse
      67
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!