Webspace Used

[#1]

According to the 'Webspace Used' in my Website Settings, I'm using 230MB of my 250MB allowance.

I have mirrors of my websites (www.thejudge.me.uk and www.judgemental.plus.com) on my HDD, and they only come to 169MB between them.

Can someone tell me what is causing the discrepancy?

[#2]

Have you checked directories above your websites, e.g. the logs directory?

[#3]

Yup - that's showing as empty.

[#4]

Anyone?

[#5]

Not a direct answer to your question but for my standard webspace, if I add up directory contents sizes shown by FileZilla for my files I get 8.3 MB. The total shown in Member Centre is 34 MB, some 4 times larger.

Additional space will be taken up by the directories, which I haven't counted, but allowing an arbitrary 10% overhead for these gets nowhere near what Member Centre shows.

[#6]

Could be down to default cluster size.

A 1 byte file on an NTFS filing system uses as little as 4KB whereas on exFAT it could be as much as 128KB

[#7]

I've just gone through all the directories and files on the webspace with CoreFTP, and it comes out with the figure as I gave it in my first post.

I did raise this issue via a ticket a three or four years or so ago, but was given a bit of a fobbing off (as I remember it, they said that the difference could be accounted for by log files which weren't counted towards my allocation of space; no, I didn't believe it, but I let it ride for the time being), but if that's the only way of getting it looked at I might have to go down that road again.

Thanks for your help so far.

[#8]

I have a lot of small files so block or sub-block wasted space overheads could be large. In my case remaining space is not an issue so I'm less concerned by the calculated and reported space usage discrepancy.

[#9]

As an experiment I added a single 3.94MB file to my website; the control panel space-used report went up from 34MB to 38MB which is correct.

[#10]

It's highly unlikely that Plusnet use NTFS to store files for a website.

[#11]

This has now become (temporarily, I hope) irrelevant because I had an e-mail this morning telling me that my site had been 'archived' because of very high bandwidth use over the previous 24 hours (I don't know why this has happened - it isn't anything that I've done to it) . So now I have to wait for them to restore it (if they choose to, of course).

Time to look for a new host, I think...

[#12]

You did post links to your sites in a very public place which might of driven extra traffic to them!

[#13]

And there was me thinking that the idea of having a website was to draw people's attention to it.

At the risk of taking this off the original topic, looking at my webstats (I still have access to those, at least!), I can see that one IP address was responsible for the huge spike in bandwidth on 21~22/01 (something like 80% over my limit!): one within a btcentralplus.com address range which seems to have grabbed 481MB of data. Also, most of the downloading has come via a wget command. This looks dodgy to me. If I ever get my site back, I'm adding an exclusion to .htaccess to stop wget (although I know that will only work for un-spoofed requests).

[#14]

How do you do that?

Also, there are many other programs that can get URL data.

[#15]

Apparently by adding this:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} wget [NC]

Of course, I've no way of knowing whether or not it will work at all until I get my site back.