k, lemme get this straight, If I colocate that means I have locate my own server at someone else's NOC. correct?

Now what I need to know is what I should be looking for in colocation packages.

And also: does that mean I have to physically ship my server there? How does one do that with a full guarantee that they will send it back?

Yes, with colocation you locate your server at someone elses NOC. You have to pay for bandwidth and rackspace. Usually, one goes to the NOC and installs it himself, I guess you could ship your server there, it would cost more and would need some special arrangements. And about the guarantee they will ship it back, if they don't, send a lawyer to the shipping address :D

I've never heard of that happening.

You would usually have to make a special arrangement with the NOC to ship your server to the datacenter to be setup. But I have heard it done.

Really a host wouldn't want to rip a customer off in the hardware area, its so cheap that the amount of money they would loose is much much greater....



I'm not saying that it hasn't happend but its unlikely if you choose a well footed and known host.....

colocation is usually only for small web hosting companies is that right? or is it for web sites as well?

for web sites that use 200 gigs of BW a month is it better to colocate or use dedicated?

depends ... do you have the money up front to build/buy your server and colocate or not? If you do, I always prefer colocation (flexibility to choose NOC, to move the servres, etc) ... But if you don't dedicated server will be good for you ...

cheers,
:beer:

I prefer dedicated, cause then the NOC is responsible for hardware, etc

If you have the money upfront to build your server and there's a NOC close by, I'd prefer colocation. Reason:
1. Flexibility
2. Usually cheaper in the long run
3. It's your server!

If you want to have a peace of mind (in case the hardware went bad) and are willing to pay more, go with dedicated. :)

We ship all of our equipment to our data centre, we just let them know when it should be ariving and give them the UPS tracking number. In fact as it happens I have never seen a single one of our server in person, we ship it straight from our supplier to the data centre where they check that everything is as it should be and set it up.

In case you're wondering we co-lo with DataColo.

Originally posted by KDAWebServices
In fact as it happens I have never seen a single one of our server in person, we ship it straight from our supplier to the data centre where they check that everything is as it should be and set it up.

Hmm.. not to distrust any colo providers, but that leaves me with a funny feeling.. :D "Nope, that server you just sent didn't have that extra PIII chip in it.. "

Oh well..
raqworld

Originally posted by massive
colocation is usually only for small web hosting companies is that right? or is it for web sites as well?

for web sites that use 200 gigs of BW a month is it better to colocate or use dedicated? I would say dedicated is better when you have 1 or 2 servers with no huge processing power requirement.

But as you grow dedicated server providers tend to charge extra monthly fee for each additional MB of RAM or GB of hard disk installed, while when you had them co-located you only paid once.

I have been on dedicated for 10 months and I am now moving towards co-location. My economics show that by moving to colocation, with less monthly payment for 4 co-located servers than for 2 dedicated servers, I can afford to have 8x more users.

Of course the initial colocation cost is greater because of expensive rackmounted hardware.

Originally posted by dabystru
Of course the initial colocation cost is greater because of expensive rackmounted hardware.

But alot of rackmounted hardware is coming waaay down in cost.. and you can easily make that up in cost within a few months compared to dedicated.. Check out some of the other posts on where to buy rack mounted servers.. very interesting..

laterz,
raqworld

Personally I think the better term for "dedicated" is "leased or rented servers."

I prefer co-location because:

1) I have multiple co-location sites with different companies. If I want CONSISTANT equipment, I use my own equipment. Instead of the "special of the month" that you get dedicated, I am assured my hadware uses the same drivers, etc. This really pays off when all the partitions on the hard drive and other stuff is the same. If you are going back forth between 4 or 6 different servers each day, makes it much easier.
2) I load the machines myself, that means I do all the security patches and configuration. I tend to find that NOC employees are focused on doing things QUICK and not always the best at securing servers. They tend to be "net guys" and not "operating system guys."
3) If you want special hardware configurations - such as lots of RAM, it is often much easier to do yourself. I needed 2GB of RAM in machines, and it cost me much less to do myself than "lease" that RAM each month. It took me only 5 months to pay for the machine given the savings in monthly fees.

It is more labor on my part at the start - but I have more control.

I keep a spare system ready to ship and swap out. If a server fails, I just put another in the mail and ask the ISP to ship me back the old one.

The shipping cost of overnighting a 1u server (around $150, often less depending on location) is minimal. You tend to save in hosting cost (not leasing the server).

Again, it IS more labor = requires more skill, is more work.

If you can admin your own machine, and you want to be reliable, do it yourself because as this entire webboard shows, everyone else sucks.

If you are not confidant in your ability to keep your own machine running and secure, do dedicated. They'll take care of everything, but when you want to do something, they may tell you "that's not possible" and everything you need done may not happen instantly.

I colocate. Up 228 days, 22:18. No webhoster I'm at has done that.

Originally posted by Raqworld
Hmm.. not to distrust any colo providers, but that leaves me with a funny feeling.. :D "Nope, that server you just sent didn't have that extra PIII chip in it.. "

If the colo host is that dishonest, I think losing a processor will be the least of your worries.

Originally posted by Raqworld


Hmm.. not to distrust any colo providers, but that leaves me with a funny feeling.. :D "Nope, that server you just sent didn't have that extra PIII chip in it.. "

Oh well..
raqworld

You have to understand something .. one you grow to NOC level ... things like a CPU or a gig of RAM no longer have the “WOW” appeal they have when you are a small host .. Why would anybody jeopardize a business they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 299.00 CPU ? :D

Just one thing to remember when you do co-locate is that if your server is extremly important you may want to keep parts on hand, if your local to the servers thats one thing or if you make arrangements with your host if a part dies , otherwise, your server will be down until you can get that replacement part to the NOC.

Originally posted by CRego3D
You have to understand something .. one you grow to NOC level ... things like a CPU or a gig of RAM no longer have the “WOW” appeal they have when you are a small host .. Why would anybody jeopardize a business they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 299.00 CPU ? :D

I totally understand and having worked at a pretty large web hosting firm, you are correct on the attitude about hardware.. I'm just saying this: When you order a server from somewhere and they ship it directly to the colo provider, there are alot of hands in the way and you never know what *could* happen.
If you inspected the machine from the vendor and then shipped it, alot of the finger pointing when something does go wrong would be eliminated.

I was just expressing some thoughts about the arrangement mentioned.. thats all.
laterz,
raqworld

does anyone have good links for high bandwidth colo facilities?
everyone i've seen has been like, $200 per month for 60gb or 100gb.

does anyone know if rackshack is going to offer a large amount of bandwidth with their colo packages?

Originally posted by Raqworld


I totally understand and having worked at a pretty large web hosting firm, you are correct on the attitude about hardware.. I'm just saying this: When you order a server from somewhere and they ship it directly to the colo provider, there are alot of hands in the way and you never know what *could* happen.
If you inspected the machine from the vendor and then shipped it, alot of the finger pointing when something does go wrong would be eliminated.

I was just expressing some thoughts about the arrangement mentioned.. thats all.
laterz,
raqworld

Yes, I and I understand you as well, unfortunately for most customer (expecially out of the US) .. there is just no other way ..

That's why you should allways stick with a hardware vendor that you know and trust .. sometimes saving 10.00 by goign with someone else is not worthed in the end .. :)