Re: [cobalt-users] A Word About Cobaltracks.Com and Bandwidth Usage

["Marc Gear" <marcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> In a given month if you fully utilized your bandwidth during every single
> second of the month, you would still require a connection of at least
163.2
> kbps to transfer 51 GB in any given month (51 * 3.2 kbps).  This is equal
to
> 20.4 KB/s (163.2/8).  However, most have tested cobaltracks.com to be
lower
> than this figure and even current users have mentioned the cobaltracks.com
> servers are slow.
>
> So lets see, three times the min bandwidth of 163.2 kbps is 489.6 kbps,
but
> cobaltracks does not even provide the min bandwidth, so what are you
really
> getting?  Sounds like another classic example of a webhost/dedicated
server
> company sales gimmick where you get less than you expected.

i get a steady 49 Kilobytes/second from cobaltracks.
49 Kb a sec over a period of a minute is 2.87Mb/min
that over an hour is 172.2Mb/Hr
Over a day that is about 4.04Gb
Allowing 28 days in a month you i could transfer 113Gb.

My excess bandwidth costs to cobaltracks for this would be about $170.
This is dead cheap. However, if i had a mission critical enterprise that was
likley to do 51Gb of transfer a month i would probably not be hosting it
with a company that charged me only $99 a month.

I have no problem with cobaltracks, i'd love it to be faster, but it serves
its purpose, which for me is a cheap 'playbox'
--
/\/\ a R (