server for video hosting

It depends on your bandwidth/storage/cost requirements. The cheapest option will always be your own dedicated server, but the easiest would probably using something like S3. Depending on how private you need your data to be you could always use YouTube/Vimeo as a host.

If you need a service, I would suggest Vimeo because the service is very reliable and the player is great and customizable. I have tried to use S3 before but access time is a problem.

i don't want to use YouTube/Vimeo service and dedicated server also cant handle more then few current users while playing videos. is AWS S3 better solution for that for play 1TB of videos to thousands of users? @Josh

Do you have specifics reason to not want Vimeo? They're paid option ($200 USD / yr) is what Laracasts (and myself at shippingdocker.com/serversforhackers.com) uses in conjunction with the videojs library as the front end.

Vimeo is likely the cheapest and most reliable way you'll be able to stream video.

On AWS, you can certainly use s3, but I don't believe it supports streaming protocols (forcing users to download the entire thing over http as it plays). You can use CloudFront in front of S3 to get streaming options, which will give a much better experience. It will cost extra of course.

On that note - if you do use a dedicated server, a CDN can help relieve some pressure on it for many concurrent connections, while also helping serve content world-wide.

Some CDN's will even host video for you (Akamai, CD Network, other similar ones in that space).

I think no matter how you implement it, a CDN will almost certainly be a requirement.

S3 with one 1tb in conjunction with cloudfront will cost you more then $200 a year. Probably around 100 ish a month depending on bandwidth.

Agree with above if you need serious hosting it won't be free. If you are needing something for only a few videos, you could just probably setup a free youtube account, I don't know their free limits however.