Have Cpanel hosting with plenty of unused disk space.
Is it acceptable to use this space to store an offsite backup of another server. The file (tar) will not be shared with anyone.
So would this be against any TOS or do providers vary?
@msatt said: So would this be against any TOS or do providers vary?
Depends on the provider.
But usually if you have a storage quota (And not "unlimited storage") you can put whatever you want in the storage. As long as you don't break limits or abuse resources, I doubt they will care.
There is a quota (just less than 150GB) so nothing execessive and I could use rclone to write to it.
Just wondered if it would be considered abuse as the space is not being used for webpages.
@msatt said:
There is a quota (just less than 150GB) so nothing execessive and I could use rclone to write to it.
Just wondered if it would be considered abuse as the space is not being used for webpages.
Read the TOS. Some providers say that the storage is only allowed to be used for websites, while others do not care. In any case, I would not recommend using this as your only backup.
The way I see it, is that if a hosting provider gives you a disk quota, you can use it how you see fit (without violating other TOS such as disk I/O usage, copyrighted material, etc.) - If they don't then it's up to them on how they want to police "abusers" and up to you if you want to risk getting your account nuked for a TOS violation.
Cheap dedis are my drug, and I'm too far gone to turn back.
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
@msatt said:
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
By the way, does your provider allow one to install Nextcloud or ownCloud via Softaculous? If so, this would presumably be a legitimate way of storing files in your storage space.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
@msatt said:
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
I think that's good.
It can be argued that this allows for better resource usage - closer to optimal.
For example:
I can create accounts on my reseller hosting, providing say 5 GB of storage for each (overselling practically).
That provides more than enough space for all the moderately-sized website files, along with some room for creating, uploading and downloading backups.
However, if I used that space to store backups and loaded each created sub-account to the brim, or even to 4 GB, my total available storage would be exceeded.
There is cheap Hetzner Box storage for storing backups. There, random read speed is less important.
It makes no sense to use hosting storage for storing backups and files in general, unless they are needed for the website's functioning.
Providers who allow this could see their storage expenses rise (if enough customers decide to use all the available storage), which requires more price hikes.
@msatt said:
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
I think that's good.
It can be argued that this allows for better resource usage - closer to optimal.
For example:
I can create accounts on my reseller hosting, providing say 5 GB of storage for each (overselling practically).
That provides more than enough space for all the moderately-sized website files, along with some room for creating, uploading and downloading backups.
However, if I used that space to store backups and loaded each created sub-account to the brim, or even to 4 GB, my total available storage would be exceeded.
There is cheap Hetzner Box storage for storing backups. There, random read speed is less important.
It makes no sense to use hosting storage for storing backups and files in general, unless they are needed for the website's functioning.
Providers who allow this could see their storage expenses rise (if enough customers decide to use all the available storage), which requires more price hikes.
I see what you're saying, and no doubt many providers would agree with you about such a restriction, but at the same time, from an end-user point of view, it's not so great, especially because it's often not so obvious at the time of purchase unless one studies the ToS.
Anyway, as I tried to say above, if a provider allows ownCloud or Nextcloud to be installed via Softaculous, they would have a hard time saying that a customer couldn't store files via ownCloud or Nextcloud. (Or so it seems to me.)
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
@angstrom said: By the way, does your provider allow one to install Nextcloud or ownCloud via Softaculous? If so, this would presumably be a legitimate way of storing files in your storage space.
Good point Nextcloud is available which is a much better solution - Thanks @angstrom
@msatt said:
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
I think that's good.
It can be argued that this allows for better resource usage - closer to optimal.
For example:
I can create accounts on my reseller hosting, providing say 5 GB of storage for each (overselling practically).
That provides more than enough space for all the moderately-sized website files, along with some room for creating, uploading and downloading backups.
However, if I used that space to store backups and loaded each created sub-account to the brim, or even to 4 GB, my total available storage would be exceeded.
There is cheap Hetzner Box storage for storing backups. There, random read speed is less important.
It makes no sense to use hosting storage for storing backups and files in general, unless they are needed for the website's functioning.
Providers who allow this could see their storage expenses rise (if enough customers decide to use all the available storage), which requires more price hikes.
I see what you're saying, and no doubt many providers would agree with you about such a restriction, but at the same time, from an end-user point of view, it's not so great, especially because it's often not so obvious at the time of purchase unless one studies the ToS.
Anyway, as I tried to say above, if a provider allows ownCloud or Nextcloud to be installed via Softaculous, they would have a hard time saying that a customer couldn't store files via ownCloud or Nextcloud. (Or so it seems to me.)
Good points.
Still, I don't like being "that guy" if you understand what I mean (I don't mean, nor imply the OP).
@angstrom said: By the way, does your provider allow one to install Nextcloud or ownCloud via Softaculous? If so, this would presumably be a legitimate way of storing files in your storage space.
Good point Nextcloud is available which is a much better solution - Thanks @angstrom
Again, depends on provider, does not hurt to ask before experimenting. for e.g. If you use Myw.pt- Mikept is okay with installing Nextcloud. But this was 2 years ago.
@msatt said:
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
Shared and Reseller Hosting Customers are expected to reasonably utilize their hosting space in a manner that is needed to host their public facing website(s) and its core website functionality only. For example, utilizing shared and reseller hosting services to serve as a cloud storage locker or to store unrelated backups is prohibited.
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
By the way, does your provider allow one to install Nextcloud or ownCloud via Softaculous? If so, this would presumably be a legitimate way of storing files in your storage space.
It’s from racknerd tos and I’m pretty sure Dustin said Nextcloud was ok but he of course recommended vps
It depends on the provider, for example we offer an 'Unlimited' disk space plan and we will do our best to actually let you use the disk space you need but in our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website - if you use it as backup storage and the server ends up needing more disk space, you could be asked to remove the backups.\
If your plan has a set disk space limit, I see no issue in using it for backup storage unless otherwise specified in the company TOS. We also have limited plans and we'd let you use it fully and entirely for backup storage.
@SpeedyPage said:
our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website
What prevents the abuser from uploading GB's of videos and telling they are all embedded in webpages on my site?
Or making 2,000 copies backups of the website?
@SpeedyPage said:
our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website
What prevents the abuser from uploading GB's of videos and telling they are all embedded in webpages on my site?
Or making 2,000 copies backups of the website?
@SpeedyPage said:
our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website
What prevents the abuser from uploading GB's of videos and telling they are all embedded in webpages on my site?
Or making 2,000 copies backups of the website?
@SpeedyPage said:
our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website
What prevents the abuser from uploading GB's of videos and telling they are all embedded in webpages on my site?
Or making 2,000 copies backups of the website?
Well it'd be reviewed on a case by case basis I imagine, some companies also have additions in their terms of services which specifically clarify that they do not allow file sharing websites, video sharing websites etc - so even if they do have an Unlimited policy and you are hosting videos on the website, they may have grounds under their TOS to remove you just based on the type of website.
Comments
Sure..., but why?
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
Depends on the provider.
But usually if you have a storage quota (And not "unlimited storage") you can put whatever you want in the storage. As long as you don't break limits or abuse resources, I doubt they will care.
There is a quota (just less than 150GB) so nothing execessive and I could use rclone to write to it.
Just wondered if it would be considered abuse as the space is not being used for webpages.
Of course it is acceptable. Especially if provider offers "unlimited" space. Pump it up to the top.
Read the TOS. Some providers say that the storage is only allowed to be used for websites, while others do not care. In any case, I would not recommend using this as your only backup.
As long as it is acceptable to provider everything is secondary
blog | exploring visually |
There also could be number of files / size of singular file limit and it won't work for you in future
Haven't bought a single service in VirMach Great Ryzen 2022 - 2023 Flash Sale.
https://lowendspirit.com/uploads/editor/gi/ippw0lcmqowk.png
The way I see it, is that if a hosting provider gives you a disk quota, you can use it how you see fit (without violating other TOS such as disk I/O usage, copyrighted material, etc.) - If they don't then it's up to them on how they want to police "abusers" and up to you if you want to risk getting your account nuked for a TOS violation.
Cheap dedis are my drug, and I'm too far gone to turn back.
Did not think the supplier would have mentioned anything, but in their AUP -
So fair enough I won't bother.
It's not so good that some providers make this restriction, but I guess that it makes it easier for them to oversell storage space.
By the way, does your provider allow one to install Nextcloud or ownCloud via Softaculous? If so, this would presumably be a legitimate way of storing files in your storage space.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I think that's good.
It can be argued that this allows for better resource usage - closer to optimal.
For example:
I can create accounts on my reseller hosting, providing say 5 GB of storage for each (overselling practically).
That provides more than enough space for all the moderately-sized website files, along with some room for creating, uploading and downloading backups.
However, if I used that space to store backups and loaded each created sub-account to the brim, or even to 4 GB, my total available storage would be exceeded.
There is cheap Hetzner Box storage for storing backups. There, random read speed is less important.
It makes no sense to use hosting storage for storing backups and files in general, unless they are needed for the website's functioning.
Providers who allow this could see their storage expenses rise (if enough customers decide to use all the available storage), which requires more price hikes.
Relja of House Novović, the First of His Name, King of the Plains, the Breaker of Chains, WirMach Wolves pack member
BikeGremlin's web-hosting reviews
I see what you're saying, and no doubt many providers would agree with you about such a restriction, but at the same time, from an end-user point of view, it's not so great, especially because it's often not so obvious at the time of purchase unless one studies the ToS.
Anyway, as I tried to say above, if a provider allows ownCloud or Nextcloud to be installed via Softaculous, they would have a hard time saying that a customer couldn't store files via ownCloud or Nextcloud. (Or so it seems to me.)
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Good point Nextcloud is available
which is a much better solution - Thanks @angstrom
Good points.
Still, I don't like being "that guy" if you understand what I mean (I don't mean, nor imply the OP).
Relja of House Novović, the First of His Name, King of the Plains, the Breaker of Chains, WirMach Wolves pack member
BikeGremlin's web-hosting reviews
Again, depends on provider, does not hurt to ask before experimenting. for e.g. If you use Myw.pt- Mikept is okay with installing Nextcloud. But this was 2 years ago.
blog | exploring visually |
It’s from racknerd tos and I’m pretty sure Dustin said Nextcloud was ok but he of course recommended vps
It depends on the provider, for example we offer an 'Unlimited' disk space plan and we will do our best to actually let you use the disk space you need but in our terms of service we do clarify it's unlimited disk space for an actual website - if you use it as backup storage and the server ends up needing more disk space, you could be asked to remove the backups.\
If your plan has a set disk space limit, I see no issue in using it for backup storage unless otherwise specified in the company TOS. We also have limited plans and we'd let you use it fully and entirely for backup storage.
What prevents the abuser from uploading GB's of videos and telling they are all embedded in webpages on my site?
Or making 2,000 copies backups of the website?
blog | exploring visually |
They look in our garden probably
Why?
Well it'd be reviewed on a case by case basis I imagine, some companies also have additions in their terms of services which specifically clarify that they do not allow file sharing websites, video sharing websites etc - so even if they do have an Unlimited policy and you are hosting videos on the website, they may have grounds under their TOS to remove you just based on the type of website.