Youtube.com

With a site like youtube, the owner of the site should get a dedicated server. Video are the "in thing" nowadays, and one should expect a sudden increase of visitors.

Moved to: Web Hosting Discussion.

:gl:

I think they have a lot more than a dedicated server.

Tom

-db- said:

Moved to: Web Hosting Discussion.

:gl:

Click to expand...

Sorry DB


:notme: :hehe:



Well, when they first started out and started to get polular, how much do you think it cost to host a site like that?

Thanks.

I would say it cost them around $350 per server since they would not just get a cheap server they need good ones then they would have around 200 servers (my guess) so $350 x 200 = $70k a month.

But then agian there profit is massive so it all pays off for them.

NetworkTown.Net said:

I would say it cost them around $350 per server since they would not just get a cheap server they need good ones then they would have around 200 servers (my guess) so $350 x 200 = $70k a month.

But then agian there profit is massive so it all pays off for them.

Click to expand...

Per Washington Post: 'YouTube received $11.5 million in venture funding from Sequoia Capital and is estimated to be spending at least $2 million monthly to operate the site.'

The company itself is unprofitable. But now Google picks up their tab.

I saw a video somewhere where they were opening up their cages at a datacenter (can't remember the exact one) and were showing their apple servers (quad xeons). Each box is about $5000+ depending on specs and I know they have a fail-over cluster system. You'll be looking at about $250,000 (or more) for 50 of these boxes not including the cage rent, system admins, cluster system, firewall, switch, the racks, and gigabit cables (assuming their using gigabit connections). Your looking at the far least 2 GBPS connection which would equal about 6480000GB bandwidth /mo. Assuming their using cheap bandwidth their monthly price for an unmetered line would be $30,000/mo - not including if their datacenter charges electricity fees which wouldn't be too bad. Then they have to pay system admins (and believe me they are not cheap) to work full time for them.

I really doubt their paying $2 million/mo as most "normal" size data centers don't even get close to that. My estimates are at bare minimum (50 servers is very low, I would not be surprised if they had over 1000).

Just my 2 cents.

The $2 mil/mo are their operational costs (incl. salaries, rents, etc) - not just costs to run the servers.