If I’m doing my math right, Hetzner advertised approximately 298TB/month on a 1Gbps link (1Gbps * 30.4 days = X Tebibyte). This user is only at 250TB/month.
Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
31–40 of 311 posts
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#32To 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/G…
Hetzner 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.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#33Slightly OT: Suppose you want to deliver a couple of 100’s Mbps to people in EU on the cheap, how would you do it? Assume it’s static files, so the server doesn’t need to be that beefy.
Hetzner would probably be my first choice. Even though I’ve hade some strangely slow connections there sometimes.
Other more enterprisey providers like Datapacket seem to be significantly more expensive.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS pricing is a rip-off.
... and their systems are designed to make controlling it difficult to impossible while locking people in to their ecosystem.
How 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.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#35I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. This person is probably paying like 50 bucks a month or less and is in the top 1% of bandwidth users as measured by individual ethernet ports from a top of rack aggregation switch or similar.
> I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. Raises hand The fact that these kinds of lies are normal doesn't make them OK. Instead, just... don't lie.
reaching out nicely to a customer that's probably in the top 0.02% of your bandwidth users for their package/plan and asking them to move to a more serious/expensive service is not a lie...
i should also note that a very common reason for a dedicated hosting company's server to go wild on upstream bandwidth is something misconfigured or compromised, and being used maliciously by some external 3rd party. not actual bandwidth usage from the paying customer. this is mentioned in a nicer way in the email.
they probably could have just cut them off arbitrarily. nothing obligates them to keep a customer.
this is actually really nice on the part of the hosting ISP in my opinion.
If you have a sustained near 800 Mbps of outbound traffic you should be doing it from something much more serious than an absolute bottom of the barrel lowest cost no-SLA dedicated server.
this is "unlimited" in the same way that an all you can eat buffet restaurant is unlimited, with some caveats.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#36Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#37I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. This person is probably paying like 50 bucks a month or less and is in the top 1% of bandwidth users as measured by individual ethernet ports from a top of rack aggregation switch or similar.
Thats how these unlimited offerings work though?
The 99% pay for the 1% that actually uses the unlimited traffic
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#38To 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/G…
> 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.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does not matter. Hetzner say Unlimited and Guaranteed traffic at 1Gbit/s with no fair use policy mentioned for that port speed.
Although I agree, when you look around, and especially when you look at AWS, Hetzner's offer is still excellent in terms of value for money.
cloud traffic pricing is a massive ripoff, especially in europe where bandwidth is cheap
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#40I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. This person is probably paying like 50 bucks a month or less and is in the top 1% of bandwidth users as measured by individual ethernet ports from a top of rack aggregation switch or similar.
I have run an ISP network, and I feel their pain. But if they sell it as unlimited and have no fair use policy, they need to honor their contract.
The part of the T&C they point to just says they can terminate any contract for any reason. That's a pretty lame way to resolve what is basically a marketing problem -- they want to sell a bandwidth-limited service as unlimited i.e. lie about it.
Say what you will about fair use policies, but at least they spell it out.