Topic: Planetdescent.com?

[-<WillyP>-]

If it's unlimited, then what difference does it make how much .com used?

There is no such thing as an unlimited space and bandwidth plan. Read the fine print.

[Thomas]

Sure is, there's lots of hosting plans that offer unlimited space and b/width.

Which one's that?

[Crash]

Well certainly Dreamhost, although I'd hesitate to recommend them based on uptime.  Having said that, their support is no slouch and the site performance is usually very high.  Hosting companies that offer unlimited space and bandwidth are ten-a-penny.  If you type "unlimited bandwidth hosting" into Google you'll see what I mean.

The way it works is that you're always limited in what you upload by your outgoing bandwidth and the fact that it has to be sent by FTP.  I know that in Dreamhost's case an unlimited number of sub-ftp accounts is available and thereby a large amount of content can be contributed by many users.  Most other hosts allow the same.

When it says unlimited, to all intents and purposes, it generally is. But as always read the reviews. Assuming the site's requirements aren't astronomical, you'll have no trouble getting cheap hosting, especially in the US.  I'm lucky to be hosted for free on a friend's plan and my game has gigabytes of old versions uploaded. Nobody bats an eyelid.  The actual owner has an installer for a mod he wrote, which is about 5gigs in itself.

[-<WillyP>-]

Hosting companies that offer unlimited space and bandwidth are ten-a-penny.  If you type "unlimited bandwidth hosting" into Google you'll see what I mean.

I did just that, here is the first result: http://www.findmyhosting.com/the-truth-about-unlimited-bandwidth/

[Crash]

I saw that too, I didn't think it's very accurate. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would a small website be good for an unlimited bandwidth plan when you run the risk of some guy on the server using too many resources?
Infact if you look here at the very same site its top recommendations are "unlimited" hosts as you can see: http://www.findmyhosting.com/compare-hosting/
Even they mustn't believe that.

'Unlimited' is a trade-off. If you need tonnes of space etc cheap and it's a non-profit site then... it's the perfect solution. Sure you've got to go for a decent host but... in my experience that article is just wrong.

It's just like unlimited broadband... sure, there is a limit, it's just set far higher than other products, to the extent that you just can't physically reach it.

Alternatively, you just work out how much resources you use and opt for a plan with accordingly big but finite numbers... which is kinda why I was asking in the first place, lol.

[Scyphi]

Article actually makes perfect sense to me. "Unlimited," by definition, means "not limited, unrestricted, infinite, vast," etc. and I know enough about computers, networking, and the such to know that there is no such thing as truly "unlimited" hosting.

It's a play on words, really. The hoster, when they say that, are probably saying that they have lots and lots of space and bandwidth available to the point that it SEEMS unlimited, but it certainly isn't. Eventually, the space CAN and WILL run out. BUT a good hosting service IMO will make sure that will never happen, by either clearing out clutter, or upgrading their equipment to house even more space.

The article also said that the whole gimmick (or whatever you want to call it) works best when the users don't go gung-ho on it and upload say a few hundred gigs in a very short time. They're counting on the users to upload lots of small stuff, like only a few megabytes or less at a time. Sure, it'll add up over time, but at a much slower rate, a rate that they can check and monitor during that time, and adjust accordingly.

I'll bet that's why you've gotten away with having lots of stuff being hosted at any given moment Crash. You say you have several gigs worth of uploaded data, which I'm certainly not contesting, but I bet that's mostly just an accumilation of lots of little stuff built up over time. Obviously, the hosting service is pretty dedicated to the "unlimited" illusion to be able to maintain that for so long.

Furthermore, it seems to me that I've noticed that a lot of those "unlimited" services charge money for use, which adds a whole new factor to it. If they were just providing that kind of service for free, they wouldn't be getting enough profit to maintain such a service forever. Charging for such services then makes sense, because the added income means money to burn making sure the "unlimited" illusion continues. Plus, charging money in turn stems the flow of uploaders somewhat, because most people are probably just going to be looking for someplace to host their stuff for free, and aren't willing to pay a price to do it (I certainly wouldn't), so that adds even more to the illusion, as it means not just anybody with an internet connection is uploading their stuff, but a much smaller and more finite number of users. Less people, the slower the seemingly "unlimited" space is used up.

But in short, think of the computers as mere containers. They have physical dimensions, and eventually, if you keep putting stuff into it, it will fill up. Thereby, you need another container to put stuff in.

You partly noted this already, but I just wanted to make sure we're absolutely clear on the fact that "unlimited" does not truly mean "unlimited," and that the article actually does raise a few good points.

K, I'm getting off my soap box now.

[Crash]

You're right, it is problematic. I think "vast" is still pretty applicable though.
The interesting thing about PCs is that their capacity is not limited by size but by advancement. 3 years ago a 2.5" HDD @7200RPM could handle 160GB, now it can handle 500GB.

I think the most important thing though is to find a host with a no-BS money-back guarantee. You try it out and if the service is bad, you leave. I've never come across supplementary charges based on consumption except on 'limited providers' where you are often penalised massively for exceeding your bandwidth limit. (Free hosts just make the site unavailable for a time but paid ones usually just invoice you into the ground). In my experience unlimited is always fixed-rate.

The whole Dreamhost arrangement works pretty well at the moment for me and I'm sure the company attracts very heavy users by its reputation. I used my old desktop to upload all my heavy stuff overnight. Plus there are easily about a dozen people like me on the same, single account. Had it been 20 gigs it would still be small change to them. Hosting 100 gigs or whatever is no big deal these days.

The only 'limited' plan that website recommends in its top 10 was one that offered a guaranteed 150GBytes, which I would have thought would be sufficient.
But if they are offering that, the implication is that the others would have to handle even more per customer. These 10 recommended hosts offer daily backups, money-back guarantees and phone support, which you won't get at Dreamhost and I think are the sign of a really excellent host.

I understand your suspicion though. I acknowledge the risk of being allocated on the same server as some idiot but having tried it both ways, I wouldn't consider going back. From my experience, it's an all-you-can-eat buffet, where the food is about as good as anywhere else.

I'm not too sure how much stock to put in that site anyway. That article about unlimited plans is simply bad advice and inaccurate and their #1 reviewed host may be a bunch of scam artists:
http://www.besthostratings.com/web-hosting/just-host-review-comments-6007.html

[-<WillyP>-]

I didn't mean to imply you should take the recommendation of that one site, Google the name of the host before you buy. I only thought it was an appropriate article to come up in the number one spot. Personally I have been very happy with Bravenet. For just a little more than you quoted you get 30gig storage, 600gig/month bandwidth. Unless your planning the next YouTube or Facebook it will be a very long time before you exceed that, if ever. I guess you could call that 'virtually unlimited' and that would be closer to true than what you'll get from a so-called 'unlimited hosting' plan. In the 6 years I have been on Bravenet they have never charged me for anything other than the monthly fee and domain registration. No limit on the file type, or script type.

Edit: you edited your post while I was typing, I'm glad you found that info about justhost. Personally, I feel the concept of 'unlimited' is just too good to be true. Not to say they are all scammers, of course, but... caveat emptor...

[Crash]

I don't think I have 30GB of data that I really want to share with the world. I used to use a lot of Bravenet add-ons for my site in the days when Odigo Messenger was still operational and Bravenet had its own branded version.

When, I think it was Thomas, said "is that a serious question", my immediate reaction was: "Jesus, how much must they be planning on using"?

I think many people would agree that many Hosting review sites are as bland and faceless as the hosts they recommend and most of the reviews are paid for. Those sorts of reviews almost never match-up with customer feedback.

[-<WillyP>-]

Not only that, but every category you click gives you the same results.

[Thomas]

When, I think it was Thomas, said "is that a serious question", my immediate reaction was: "Jesus, how much must they be planning on using"?

Thomas wanted to know whether PD.com is coming back to either remove all references to that site or leave them in place for now.

I'm not at all interested in hosting providers.

The question about the seriousness of the question was actually directed to the fact that we haven't got a clue how much space or bandwidth PD.com used. You really should have known that yourself.

I certainly haven't got a clue.

[Crash]

Well, just because the answer's unknown doesn't make the question stupid.
I have nothing to do with the running of the site and I don't know what provisions Gamespy makes available for community sites to measure their traffic etc.

Given that people here were presumably admins, there should still be indications from the number and average size of files combined with the use of metrics as to the nature of the site's bandwidth and space requirements.

These are things that site admins are often take a vague interest in, even if they aren't responsible for the hosting itself. But if that information isn't available, just say so.

[Thomas]

But if that information isn't available, just say so.

I said: "I certainly haven't got a clue."

[TechPro]

But if that information isn't available, just say so.

I'm saying so. 

Without going into details, at the time shortly before PD.com (and a bunch of other Planet sites) was shut down, 'a difficulty' with certain security authentication rules was preventing GameSpy/IGN from granting certain tools and abilities to the current site admins of PD.com, and was something the PD.com site admins were struggling with.  When those Planet sites and PD.com were shut down, it was essentially "game over".

[Crash]

Right, I completely understand now.
That's unfortunate for everyone. I've never really visited Gamespy or IGN before, knew practically nothing about them but after this I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Cheap move on their part. I mean, granted Descent hasn't seen an official release for just over 10 years but even so, alienating players just to save what must have been a tiny amount of money is pretty tight.

Anyway, I signed up here just to see where the old site went and if you need any help, I'd be more than happy to oblige in any way.

BTW, Thomas - that is a very cool site of yours. It has some very interesting content and I think I'll avail myself of your Descent3 installer over the summer!