Bandwidth

Post by **Mike** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:03 pm

I am sorry to say that I will have to make a decision today regarding the website being online available this month. I have exceeded my bandwidth again - probably due to all the rediculous spammers I have been getting on the site and Provider One are (quite rightly I might add!) asking me to make my choice, uptime and pay the extra or go offline.

As I can not afford the extra to upgrade the package I will have to take the website off line until next month.

I will be looking into a different provider to host the forum in an attempt to reduce this problem in future. The gap in service will probably kill the conversation here though, simply by having the break so I am pretty gutted.

Thought I would let you know. From tomorrow the forum will be off line for about 20 days.

BarcelonAl · Post by **BarcelonAl** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:22 pm

Do you allow search engines to spider the publicly available content of the site? That may explain some of the bandwidth increase and a 'robots' text file on the root directory of your site could help.

See the following article (although it may be a little out of date!): http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html

Post by **Mike** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:32 pm

Wayhay we now have 2500gb of bandwidth to play with. I am sure that will be sufficient for the time being!

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:18 pm

ah, with a band width this big we can take over the world!

Post by **Mike** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:04 am

It is very interesting I have checked the statistics for the webhosting on Ix and Provider-One and they are as follows.

johnriley1uk
rileyuk

together = 800mb of bandwidth.

micheaelriley.org.uk = 6.1gb of bandwidth.

I don't know what the difference is but we are now operating on significantly less than the 6.1gb provider one were claiming we used. I think they were doing something wrong! :D

Post by **Mike** » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:57 pm

Edited the above to make more sense!

I have now reclaimed michaelriley.org.uk. Now I just have to decide what to do with it!

Post by **Mike** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:28 am

I did not know that IE actually did not read the <title> tag as part of the header unless it was directly under the <head> tag. Weird. Anyway the website holding page has been fixed to make sure that a spurious Michael Riley was not appearing at the top of the page.

liz.brownlloyd · Post by **liz.brownlloyd** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:12 pm

Does that mean everything is okay?

Simple english may be useful for a dunce like me...

Post by **Mike** » Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:20 pm

Yes it does!

BarcelonAl · Post by **BarcelonAl** » Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:11 pm

[quote="Mike"]I did not know that IE actually did not read the <title> tag as part of the header unless it was directly under the <head> tag. Weird. Anyway the website holding page has been fixed to make sure that a spurious Michael Riley was not appearing at the top of the page. :roll:[/quote]
That is taking the W3C rule that the <title> tag should only appear once on a page and only within the <head></head> section at its most literal!

rileyuk.co.uk

Bandwidth

Bandwidth

Re: Bandwidth

Re: Bandwidth

Re: Bandwidth

Re: Bandwidth

Re: Bandwidth