Latley we've seen a lot of providers offering Dedicated servers with 300GB Transfer for around $99 - $150 a month. I'm considering getting one of these but would like to know which one do you think is the best and why.

I trust rackshack.net because they are ev1 company. But note that you're getting unmanaged server.

I agree that if you want true stability, rackshack is the way to go. Our servers there make life fun because they are always online.

Drew

Hi, maybe i haven't been spending enough time on these boards lately reading through the posts, but who else besides rackshack.net are throwing around similar deals like the one you suggest in your post?

The server I'm about to get is from sailor in the special offers forum - he seems to offer quite good support and everyone has said great things about him. The pictures of the NOC look good, and I think he is using better hardware than Rackshack and has less of a setup fee (or no setup fee at all). Note that the servers from tranxactglobal.com / dv2.com do not have plesk or ensim installed by default and if you want these control panels you have to pay a one-time license fee. I actually think I prefer not having ensim so that makes the tranxactglobal/dv2 servers a better deal.

We have a full cabinet in their facility (dv2) as well and it's nice. I don't know a lot about their ded. servers but suspect they are high quality.

Drew

Originally posted by Furton
Latley we've seen a lot of providers offering Dedicated servers with 300GB Transfer for around $99 - $150 a month. I'm considering getting one of these but would like to know which one do you think is the best and why.

Or if setup fees and minimal support are bothering you, you can have a look at this thread (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35637) :D

cyansmoker I thought for sure your link would be to one of the kingcomp threads :D

Originally posted by freakysid
Hi, maybe i haven't been spending enough time on these boards lately reading through the posts, but who else besides rackshack.net are throwing around similar deals like the one you suggest in your post? www.lightone.net has similar deals posted in special offers.

I would just keep in mind that Cogent is expected to burn through there money within the next 7 months.

So though its a ways away, you should make sure you have other carriers to use

Joe

Originally posted by panopticon
cyansmoker I thought for sure your link would be to one of the kingcomp threads :D

I guess you were quite disappointed ;)

Nah, these kingcomp threads are appealing but at the same time I like to stick with 'old known-for-working' solutions. But I may be absolutely wrong, I'm really perplexed :cartman:

No I agree. I was just joking around. The kingcomp deals look like a good value, but I have no idea what to make of alll the controversy or what their datacenter is really like. I don't even really understand the shared ports, etc (is it 3, or 5, can one take all the bandwidth from the other two, etc. etc.,) The answers to questions go one way and then the other, so I don't trust that offer and would not expect support to be great. (who's on first?)

Lightone's deal seemed fine, but everyone says they're unreachable if there is a problem. No good.

The wholesale colo offer looked very good, but not a single one of their existing customers came forward with a good story, and on the poll I posted the vast majority gave them a terrible vote.

Sailor's offer came through with flying colors though, the data center is real and looks good, and they seem responsive and helpful and legit. So I would either go with rackshack or tranxactglobal, and tranxactglobal/dv2 seem like a better deal to me.

--maybe I just don't want to host with someone with 'shack' in their name...

Then host with EV1 (or DV2 or whatever) and get over your word prejudice.

DN

Already though of that :D

DV2 - liquid bandwidth
EV1 - everyone's internet

Though I did notice that DV2 formerly owned netdepot but luckily they have now created a nice name for themselves, and I like the high quality look of dv2. I'm just not sure if anyone asked if I could tell them that I was hosted at a 'shack (and ev1 still has the shack logo) whereas I could direct people to dv2 :)

--always hated the flapjackshack and may have watched too many Seinfield episodes

Unless I'm mistaken, DV2 is actually owned by EV1....

Originally posted by kwimberl
Unless I'm mistaken, DV2 is actually owned by EV1....

I don't think so...

Absolutely no relationship between DV2 and EV1.

However, EV1 does own CV3, BV4, AV5 as well as FV0, GV-1, and HV-2....not really j/k

I stand corrected. After your responses, I looked up the post that I thought I remembered Jeff saying they were owned by EV1.

Here's the post:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34979&highlight=ev1

I either read it too fast back then or was too tired to comprehend. :-)

Either way, I stand corrected.

Originally posted by JBIZ718
I would just keep in mind that Cogent is expected to burn through there money within the next 7 months.

So though its a ways away, you should make sure you have other carriers to use

I've heard they have enough for 18-24 months... but you may have information I do not.

From what I've heard, it all depends on Cisco, and if they keep funding them. I wouldn't expect them to be here a year for now.

I might believe in any of these offers besides RackShacks if someone could list the specs of the servers. Like what motherboard, type of ram, type of HDD...
and explain to me how they manage to make a profit by offering this.

Originally posted by panopticon
No I agree. I was just joking around. The kingcomp deals look like a good value, but I have no idea what to make of alll the controversy or what their datacenter is really like. I don't even really understand the shared ports, etc (is it 3, or 5, can one take all the bandwidth from the other two, etc. etc.,) The answers to questions go one way and then the other, so I don't trust that offer and would not expect support to be great. (who's on first?)

Lightone's deal seemed fine, but everyone says they're unreachable if there is a problem. No good.

The wholesale colo offer looked very good, but not a single one of their existing customers came forward with a good story, and on the poll I posted the vast majority gave them a terrible vote.

Sailor's offer came through with flying colors though, the data center is real and looks good, and they seem responsive and helpful and legit. So I would either go with rackshack or tranxactglobal, and tranxactglobal/dv2 seem like a better deal to me.

--maybe I just don't want to host with someone with 'shack' in their name...

A friend of mine is in the same boat as you... she needs to bump up to a dedicated machine for her plans, but needs a reliable machine if she ever hopes to turn any coin. She bugged me so much that I came and checked all the offers with my own eyes, and I’d have to say that I find dv2 / tranxactglobal to be the best overall offer right now. (I have good experience with this stuff from all angles; from working for hosts/NOCs (including @home denver noc, lord!) to doing my own e-commerce projects, consulting, etc.)

You get about twice the machine as you get at RackShack, for the same money. And you pay ONCE for beefier hard drives, memory, etc.

dv2 is multihomed with excellent ping times and tuned routes (use the demos at visualroute.com to check routes and ping times from around the world). The man representing them, sailor, usually gets back to messages on boards and privately promptly, and he responds very well to feedback -- quick to implement suggestions. A truly good guy. They’ve been in business for quite awhile (3yrs, I think -- 7yrs for sailor). Have a real NOC. Host over 500 servers. Every client has something good to say about them (not one negative seen yet -- almost weird, really! SOMEONE’s gotta hate ‘em! Ha! :)).

Some think this is a negative, but I see it as very much of a positive -- about a third of their clients are adult. You have to be a VERY, VERY GOOD host to keep adult oriented clients. Many can afford to use ANY server, and instead of complaining, they tend to -vote with their feet-. They’re a well funded, well educated bunch when it comes to the net. The fact that they successfuly host so many money making adult sites says a lot of good things about them, believemeyou.

I, like many here it seems, think it shoud come down to Rackshack or DV2. Both are professional and multihomed.

The non-multihomed offers could really burn you. And if you’re reselling space, that means you’re going to burn your clients, too, and perhaps their clients as well (if you take on resellers yourself). Might as well call it ReHELLING, not reselling at that point! :bawling: Heck, if you sell anything through any website on that server, you could really burn everyone involved. Even open yourself up to litigation if you go down hard enough. And for what? To save a few bucks for install fees? Whip out your calculator, and really calculate the costs for the machine you want... The better providers barely cost anything more. I mean $a few dollars - $100 more maybe. Is it worth to save that much, and gain so little? If a Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Audi -- whatever -- cost a few cents to a hundred of so more dollars more initially than a Ford Focus, but the monthly payments were about the same, which would you choose? You might drive home in both at the same 60mph or 70mph on the highway, but it’s really NOT the same when you look at the big picture, now is it?

Lightone is multhomed now, but they don’t seem to communicate and even have bad ebay feedback. I’m sure Chris is a good guy, but he appears to take on too much himself. Some hosts oversell their servers -- Chris is overselling himself. LightOne, at minimum, needs more staff, and Chris better management skills. Delegation, Delegation, delegation!

Rastoma... he seems like one of the best people you could ever get a server or virtual space from. A genuinely helpful fellow, with a long list of happy clients. But as long as he’s reselling KingComp only, you could be majorly screwed by KingComp’s downfalls. And really, there’s a world of difference between KingComp and a pro NOC. Maybe if KC added at least another provider it would be good. Or should rastoma colocolate some machines at a real multihomed NOC... then take a more serious look. KC’s facilities, machines, and their singlehomed bandwidth are still unproven, and thus, a risk. And, again, it’s a real shame -- considering the quality of the man who’s doing the bulk of KC reselling. You couldn’t ask for someone more upfront about the negatives as well as the positives than rastoma.

Rackshack, too, is a little risky to me. I’ve read the Rackshack forums. While things go well for most clients, some get flaky machines, and Rackshack staff seems DREADFULLY slow at replacing hardware, or just getting you onto a better machine. Check it out yourself. To me, this is one of their biggest downfalls. And their machines are much more primitive compared to DV2, who appears to be using not just newer, but higher quality hardware. If Rackshack fixes their support (no fuss, high speed hardware swapping for one thing), and keeps up with modern hardware (why aren’t they offering XP1700s or something similar???), I’d give them a second look. In fact, if there was no DV2, I’d give them the only look as things stand right now. When their boxes work, they work well. When their customers are happy, they tend to be very happy.

If you want to minimize your risk with RackShack, though, there’s a good way to do it. Get a box through saburovo.com. He offers support for issues RackShack doesn’t, and seems better able to deal with hardware issues -- and with RS support. When you get a Rackshack server through him, it’s pretested, it already works. And that’s a very good thing. And he might be able to help you upgrade the file system to ext3. Right now, Rackshack boxes come with ext2, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s sex without a condom. ext2 file systems can get very dirty, and mess up your data, whereas ext3 is very safe -- very much superior.

So, in short, right now, I’d recommend dabystru (saburovo) for a RS server, or sailor (dv2/tranxactglobal) as the best sources for a low-cost, high quality dedicated solution from. This may change with time, who knows... but I think you’ll come to similar conclusions yourself if you look at how things really stand right now.

Good luck! Hope you enjoyed my mini-book on the subject. Ha!

I think all of your research will pay off well. It’s good that you’re thorough. It takes more time to be thorough, but it really pays dividends long term as far as your personal success goes. :) I’m sure you’ll do well....

(oh -- and for a not so cheap server, i’d highly recommend Ventures Online. Awesome support & a great forum, to boot. A class act all the way)

hello :) I'm interested in signing up with tranxactglobal, too... but I've serious concerns regarding the word: unmanaged.

I'm a newbie which is running a virtual private server at verio.... the prive of the virtual one is nearly the same of the 300gb dedicated of tranxactglobal.

but... shuld I be scared of the word unmanaged? does unmanaged mean that my server will be like a "left there boat" onto the big ocean?

should a newbie take an unmanaged thing? or will i burn my fingers (webdesign business) by doing so?

thanks a lot for helping me out of this ;)

If you don't know how to run a server, you should probably stay away from fully unmanaged servers. If you have a VPS, you may want to look into managed servers as a step up. Of course you could hire someone to look after the unmanaged beast, making your own managed server plan, so to speak.

thanks chicken for your help.... but i do not know if tranxactglob is offering a "fully" UNmanaged server or not. they say that they offer support for hardware ... and support for errors (os f.eg.) not related to user errors is for free....

is tranxactglobal FULLY unmanaged? and... hemmm what does this exactly mean?

thanks!

It means that any issues you have which are not hardware related are your responsibility. This includes kernel upgrades, software installation, troubleshooting, etc.

I am just curious, when Cogent burns through thier money, and can not operate anymore, what is going to happen to all these companies that have invested all thier money and business into thier backbone?

I mean, yea, sell it now while you got it, but what about when it is gone, how are these companies going to continue the contracts at 300Gb per month (almost a full T-1) PLUS keep thier IP addresses that they got, probably through Cogent?

I see some serious issues for those ISP's coming here soon, and please, correct me if I am wrong, I am just seeing a major flux of customers looking for another ISP if Cogent is really going out....

Even if Cogent's future was certain, it would not be smart to choose a Cogent-only provider.

Both Rackshack / EV1 and Tranxactglobal / DV2 have other pipes besides Cogent to provide better speeds and redundancy. I believe both also have a dailup/DSL/access branch so this helps them provide bandwidth at a great value since they want to balance incoming and outgoing bandwidth.

If Cogent doesn't last, then people will move, but that's not the end of the world as long as people are prepared. The cheap bandwidth now might help many sites get off the ground. Maybe by then there will also be other inexpensive alternatives.

Originally posted by protector330
hello :) I'm interested in signing up with tranxactglobal, too... but I've serious concerns regarding the word: unmanaged.

but... shuld I be scared of the word unmanaged? does unmanaged mean that my server will be like a "left there boat" onto the big ocean?

should a newbie take an unmanaged thing? or will i burn my fingers (webdesign business) by doing so?

thanks a lot for helping me out of this ;)

"Managed" means a few different things to different companies. I'm very rarely impressed with what you get with a 'managed' package. With many, it amounts to not much more than software updates. I thought managed would mean you had your own admin slave to unleash and unleash your box upon command, but that's not what I've been seeing. And for $200-$800 per month, come on... that's a rip off to keep the software somewhat refreshed. Bah.

Software updates themselves are pretty easy on most platforms. Almost every OS has a facility to handle them for you pseudo-automatically. LIke RedHat's up2date.

And companies like dv2 / transxactgloabl apparently give you free updates every quarter. (presumably to help keep the network secure with the latest patches)


Some control panels are like an admin in a box -- Plesk & Cpanel come to mind. I mean, no, they can't fix anything, and they can't fully lockdown your box... but there's plenty of hosts that do very little to their services EXCEPT install Cpanel updates continuously, add users, remove users, bill you, answer your email, and not much else. That's their business in a nutshell.

I'd actually like to see some folks chime in who have or have used managed servers at different locations, and tell me what 'managed' meant there. I'm sure some are better than others. Some are probably worth the money, some aren't. For software updates alone, screw it. It's not worth it. Learn to do that yourself. It's not like your programming the bloody software... you're updating it. :)

So how about it... Anyone out there that can share their experiences and operational definitions of 'managed'?

Our "Managed" solution is as follows:

You colocate or lease a server from us that is considered managed, we do anything and everything to that box that you don't want to basicly.

From setting up sites, to installing patches, to replacing hardware that should fail, everything. The only thing we do not do is create scripts for your site (some think this is part of a server, this is called development).

So in a nutshell, if it is going on or in your box, it is managed by us at your request. Managed solutions are supposed to be a turn-key type thing, not here it is, see ya later!

I worked for one of the biggest managed hosting companies in the world. This was not some weak little here's your server, if you need us, we're here type of deal. EVERYTHING was managed by them. In fact, clients pay extra to even get "root" access on their servers. The poin of a managed solution is for someone else to take care of your server. You simply supply the content, they do the rest. You also payed thousands per month for this service.

The "managed" servers that most hosts seem to be offering are hardly managed. And further, for a few hundred a month, I would not expect them to be.

-Dan

Originally posted by NodeHost
Our "Managed" solution is as follows:

You colocate or lease a server from us that is considered managed, we do anything and everything to that box that you don't want to basicly.

From setting up sites, to installing patches, to replacing hardware that should fail, everything. The only thing we do not do is create scripts for your site (some think this is part of a server, this is called development).

So in a nutshell, if it is going on or in your box, it is managed by us at your request. Managed solutions are supposed to be a turn-key type thing, not here it is, see ya later!

Well, for a leased server, you're going to replace hardware one way or another...

But I do like the whole do everything except creates scripts for my site thing. :) (well, actually... how about scripts that ease your own management burden? like simple runaway task killers?)

In any case, THAT'S some management you got there! That's what I wanna see... an admin slave! heh. :) Much better than what I've heard other people describe ("we'll update your system WITHIN REASON" -- for hundreds extra a month, within reason my ass!)

What sort of premium above unmanaged do you normally charge for this full service management type day spa service? And is it only for servers you host, or canpeople hire you to manage servers whereever they have them? (I've been getting emails recently asking me to manage their servers -- not something I'd want to do or have time for... but it shows there's obviously a need for external management packages)

Originally posted by serve-you
[quote]The "managed" servers that most hosts seem to be offering are hardly managed. And further, for a few hundred a month, I would not expect them to be.

-Dan

So you think a few hundred bucks is worth it to get someone to type up2date? You're either very pampered or have no expectations, right? ;) I think many lawyers have to work harder than that. Hehe.

Anyway... That no root things reminds me of pair's Quickservers. Lemme see here...

http://www.pair.com/pair/quickserve/

They're one company I'd probably trust, too, to give me a plug-n-play server, where I plug in my content, and then have absolutely no power to admin the box at all. With someone who knows enough to want to tweak a bit, that's probably a downside. I don't think, for instance, if I requrested that they install a faster httpd daemon, they'd do it. I think it's a pretty much what you see is what you get kinda deal, with maintenance and updates. Still -- it's okay, I suppose. At least it'll be more secure than a mofo with a company like this.

Wow - this thread got lively all of a sudden!

For the questions asked - above our leased price, we normally charge - the operating system has alot to do with it.

But to put it in general - around $200 up to $800 extra per month depending on the system, what all is involved with that server, if it is (god forbid) a propriatary machine, etc. There are alot of variables, but that is a general ballpark.

Originally posted by NodeHost
the operating system has alot to do with it.

But to put it in general - around $200 up to $800 extra per month depending on the system, what all is involved with that server, if it is (god forbid) a propriatary machine, etc. There are alot of variables, but that is a general ballpark.

That's pretty decent.

I see that you slide it based on OS to a large extent, which sort of implies that for you and team certain ones are, well, easier to keep ship shape.

On the same genericish Intel type box, which would be cheaper to admin, a fairly standard install of Redhat 7.2 or FreeBSD (whatever they're at now on the STABLE track.. 4.5?)?

And, again, would you throw in any scripts that would decrease you admin load? You know, the stuff the kills runaway tasks, etc? The very adminy scripts? That would seem to make sense. While you shouldn't be writing any shopping carts, obviously, it would seem to benefit you and the client a lot if basic admin functions were automated.

Originally posted by jmars


So you think a few hundred bucks is worth it to get someone to type up2date? You're either very pampered or have no expectations, right? ;) I think many lawyers have to work harder than that. Hehe.

No, I am actually agreeing with you. If all the host is doing is a couple of updates here and there, that's hardly a managed solution, and I surely would not pay extra for something like this.

Originally posted by jmars

Anyway... That no root things reminds me of pair's Quickservers. Lemme see here...

http://www.pair.com/pair/quickserve/

They're one company I'd probably trust, too, to give me a plug-n-play server, where I plug in my content, and then have absolutely no power to admin the box at all. With someone who knows enough to want to tweak a bit, that's probably a downside. I don't think, for instance, if I requrested that they install a faster httpd daemon, they'd do it. I think it's a pretty much what you see is what you get kinda deal, with maintenance and updates. Still -- it's okay, I suppose. At least it'll be more secure than a mofo with a company like this.
This is why they charge extra for root. What it boils down to is this, If you know what your doing, you don't buy a managed server. If you do, you've got enough cash to pay whatever the extra fee is to get root. We're talking huge clients here, some of them pay several million dollars a year for hosting solutions.

-Dan

Red Hat and FreeBSD are about the same in my eyes, and for a basic box, that is stable, $200 to $300 per month would cover it.

For scripting, of course we are going to install our little gadgets that make life a whole lot easier and without as many headaches.

To clarify for future reference, what is meant by scripting for the customer is stuff that they can use in live web enviroment (shopping carts, portals, etc.)

The price difference does come by OS and hardware by large part. Maintaining a server with no fault tolerance or RAID of any kind with no backup systems (tape, cd, etc.) is alot more risky on our part, so we are going to charge more. Also Windows 2000 Server, Advanced server with clustering, DataCenter (eeessshhh) will all have different prices because there are more checks to do daily, hourly, etc. So yes, our prices are based on what is installed and what headaches are going to come of it.

Hope that this helps as far as our price structure. I still do not see how a company can set a price for management and it is one price for all. Those companies tend to scare me and if they really have a team that knows what is going on, or $7.00 a hour kids that they said, "Look for this, tell us if you find it" type of people.

Originally posted by NodeHost
Red Hat and FreeBSD are about the same in my eyes, and for a basic box, that is stable, $200 to $300 per month would cover it.


That's very interesting, actually.


The price difference does come by OS and hardware by large part. Maintaining a server with no fault tolerance or RAID of any kind with no backup systems (tape, cd, etc.) is alot more risky on our part, so we are going to charge more. Also Windows 2000 Server, Advanced server with clustering, DataCenter (eeessshhh) will all have different prices because there are more checks to do daily, hourly, etc. So yes, our prices are based on what is installed and what headaches are going to come of it.


Wow, that makes total sense. I don't think most sliding scale places charge like that. If you have fault tolerance, prices go sky high. I guess if they figure you can pay more for one thing, you can pay more for another. Which, in business, isn't actually necessarily the wrong way to think. A lot of customers will go along with that.

But for people who are more logical, that's a good service and pricing scheme you have. More work, more money; less work, less money. Who woulda thought? :)

Hope that this helps as far as our price structure. I still do not see how a company can set a price for management and it is one price for all. Those companies tend to scare me and if they really have a team that knows what is going on, or $7.00 a hour kids that they said, "Look for this, tell us if you find it" type of people.

Well, aside from using first graders :), I think they probably cost average. One client won't expect much, won't use the service that much, while another will be a huge hog -- and they pay the same rate. There's not necessarily one perfect way to charge, since everyone's mind is at least a little different... and thus their buying patterns are, too. It's good, though, that your pricing scheme is different than most.

Having a UNIQUE pricing scheme will get you more customers than a same-o, same-o scheme -- like the cost-averagers have*. It stands out. It'll attract attention. Some won't like it, but even their vocalization about how much they don't like it will attract people who do. People who it 'clicks' for, 'looks right', or 'sounds good' to.

*(unless their price is EXTREMELY low comparatively, and they ACTUALLY deliver the goods sold -- then they cause a paradigm shift in the market).