Hi

I'm kinda new here. I've been looking around for dedicated servers/colocation (just drooling, not in the market for one..) and I've noticed that colo seems to be minimum $50/month for 1U and then about $2-3 a gigabyte for bandwidth. Then i see servers at places like Rackshack, who can offer for $99 bucks a month, a very decent server with 400GB of bandwidth per month! If I were to co-locate a server similar to a rackshack server, It seems that I'd be paying a TON of money, and hardware support isnt even included!

Is there something I'm missing??

Thanks for any input,
Ben Hughes

Nope, that's about the story. I bought servers at the beginning, now that isn't the route I'd take if I were just getting one or two servers (possibly even more).

Of course there are advantages to colo, such as those $99 machines might not be up to par with what you need (in terms of quality, features, etc.), and you may need to build it yourself to build it right. Leased servers of higher specs do run more per month (at least closer in line with colo).

It isn't that leasing is better than colo (or vice versa), it just depends on your needs. Add it up, the pluses and minuses and then look at the price and make a decision.

Also, people who colocate typically use more of their resources. If someones colocating a server, you can bet 9 times out of 10 they know *exactly* what they want and need, if they ask for 150gb of transit, they'll likely use 130+, whereas with a dedicated the customer might only use 20gb of transit on his package.

We chose to colocate for one big reason: fast and easy access to the servers. Plus, you are likely to end up with assets if you colo. If you rent your equipment, you accumulate no assets. Of course, a server you buy today won't be the same thing a year from now, but it'll still be worth something.

You also can't really compare Rackshack dedicated servers to the industry-as-a-whole's dedicated servers. Dedicated servers are rarely under $199/month (except for here on WHT, which makes up a small portion of the hosting industry). Take a look at RackSpace, for instance. Or check out Verio. They really aren't that cheap.

When you look at other companies and not the ones here on WHT, colocation starts to look really attractive. And no, colocation does not start at $50/U and $2-3/GB. Even the highest quality centers are cheaper than that (more like $10-20/U and $1.00-$1.50/GB).

my company, Logic Solutions (logicservers) went with a half rack so we could offer more services, ie: colo and eventually dedicated. we never thought of charging per U since we got that rack but i could see the point in charging to rent for the rack space but not $50/mth. we're also planning to allow our customers to send us hardware and we'll upgrade it for them because as a provider you should be willing to help out unlike rackshack which grabs parts from where ever (white boxes). i'd say go with a colo, it'll be more upfront to get a custom built box or one from a store, but you'll have a lot more movement choices. if you don't like the provider, its your server, you can move. if you go with a dedicated box, its a lot more work because if you do end up going to a colo, you'll spend a good part of your first few days transferring your data over to your new box instead of just having the colo shipped to your new providers data center. just my ideas, don't hate because i participate. ;)

The overhead is naturally higher. Dedicted machines can be rented again the same day if cancelled. Also is support more difficould cause ever colo server is different as to hard and software.

There are some other reasons too like that ded servers are usually crap servers that come VERY cheap especially when purchased in quantities. Then there are machines that fit in 1/2 U and still provider asks prices as for 1U etc etc endless story.

A colo server comes as is, you have actually built it so you know EXACTLY what it is...no tricks or strings attached....simple

I just wanted to show you guys one thing (from the DataCenter point of view)

expect to pay at least 35-40 per sq ft in your server room

a rack will take in average 25sq ft of your noc (yeah, do some math .. it actually does, example .. take a 25x25=625sq ft .. line them up, you get about 24 racks in 3 rows)

so, lets put the maitenance price as low as 25.00 per sq ft (beeign conservative here)

25.00 x 25sq ft = 625.00 per rack

so it comes down to less than 20.00 per U .. but that is if you FILL UP the entire rack, and of course, you are in the business to make $$ too

so if somebody offers you rackspace for 10-20.00 per U .. be weary, check the contract very carefully, becuase they will need to hit you with some other charges in order to stay afloat :)

just my 0.02 :)

Originally posted by CRego3D
so it comes down to less than 20.00 per U .. but that is if you FILL UP the entire rack, and of course, you are in the business to make $$ too

so if somebody offers you rackspace for 10-20.00 per U .. be weary, check the contract very carefully, becuase they will need to hit you with some other charges in order to stay afloat :)
This is all very true and right on the money. However, most places we've talked to will put you into a full rack and let you pay for a 1/4 or a 1/2 at a time, thus allowing you to save a little cash every month (not having to rent the entire thing and only using 1/2 of it) and still let you 'expand' into your own rack/cab.

They've got plenty of racks to fill out there -- there's good room for negotiations. Of course, you need to take into account how much power comes with a rack, but assuming you don't stuff it full of 42 1U servers (it's a pain getting to those top ones, eh? :)), everyone should be happy!

But yes, _always always always_ read the contract carefully! If something isn't included and you think it should be, tell them to add it; if something is unclear, have it clarified. The last thing you're going to want is charges for this and charges for that and "this is how we do it here" type things that'll hit your pocket a little on the hard side. :)

first, be careful about comparing "fords" to "mercedez" -- the dedicated servers you mention are the mass-market low-price leaders and thus seem more affordable to colo whereas in the mainstream, quality market, colo will always be cheaper than leased servers.

e.g. there are many dedicated servers from well-known, reputable companies that start at $400 or $500 per month and do not include bulk cogent bandwidth.

second, the difference between colo and leased servers is like the difference between renting an empty apartment or renting a completely furnished one.

They are situations appropriate for either one, neither is perfect.

Colo is typically preferred by the more advanced, or growing clients that want full control over their software and hardware configurations.

third, the "exit strategy" is important. With colo, you get your system back and don't have to start with another system reload the operating system, reload all your apps, reload all your data, etc.

For basic webhosting, you might be using a generic config, but once you start adding customized apps, monitoring, special modules, etc. the loading/configuration and tuning is non-trivial and not something you want to forced to redo unless you have to...

fourth, and this applies to corporate customers, (not the fledgling entreprenuers that seem to dominate these forums) they are real and perceived benefits to leasing a server versus buying and then colo'ing one. For example, we have corporate clients with an IT manager that has budget approval up to $1000/month of expense for colo, but has capital equipment approval of only $2000. thus for him, it's less hassle to lease a server then to go through his internal bureacracy for capital equipment approval to buy one and then colo it. not to mention the further advantages of expense versus depreciation for tax purposes.

Greetings:

From a pure economic play, we've found co-location to be cheaper than dedicated.

And I don't believe it is fair to include $99/month dedicated servers that have ZERO up time guarantees along with ZERO hardware repair / replacement guarantees to anything when it comes to running a business that requires MINIMUM to ZERO down time.

We spend close to $16,000 per month on dedicated servers with a data center that has a hardware and network service level agreement. We do our own server management.

We could go to co-location for around $5,000 to $8,000 per month having all of the equipment in one rack (most are 1U, we have an E420R that is 4U, the Alteon's are 2U each, etc.).

However, then we would loose the hardware SLA; and we would have to increase our staff to allow for staff to be working on hardware issues instead of providing managed services and managed security to our customers.

When we looked at outsourcing the hardware maintenance end, the quickest anyone would promise to get to the data center was two hours. That's two consecutive hours of down time. Then they have to check in, and get to the equipment. Then diagnose, then start the repairs.

When you have your dedicated servers at a data center with a hardware and network guarantee, they are generally on top of problematic hardware in a heart beat. Because they don't want to loose you as a customer, and they don't want to pay you against your invoicing for the downtime that counts against their guarantees.

Before I go on and on, let me state that when you get to the point of filling up 1/3rd of a rack, generally co-location can save lots of money. IF you have the ability to do your own hardware as co-location generally does not cover hardware replacements (you have to store your own in your rack) and the labor involved in dealing with hardware.

Thank you.