In colocation do you buy your own hardware and take it to them to hook it into their bandwidth? And with a dedicated server do you basically lease someone else's hardware?
Thanks,
bradley

colo = your server, their bw.
dedi = their serer, their bw.

i think colo is cheaper because you're basically paying for bw and rackspace.

Greetings:

We actually just did a summary for a managed service client looking to potentially move from dedicated at Rackspace.com to co-location:

Dedicated server tidbits:

Most providers (managed and unmanaged) manage the network infrastructure and the hardware (check on hardware service level agreements!).

The latter is important because you don't have to stock spare parts, be nearby or otherwise hire 3rd parties (which can include the provider) to handle the labor (which also means worry about response and resolution time), etc.

Most providers give you a bandwidth allocation amount per month instead of dealing with usage per second.

The provider handles the insurance on the equipment and network.


Here are some co-location tidbits:

1. Co-location generally does not save you money unless you can fill at least a 1/3rd of a rack; some places (like WorldCom), it doesn't pay unless you can fill an entire rack.

2. Bandwidth and space are priced separately.

Bandwidth is typically from one source; adding other sources means more money. Most dedicated server providers like Rackspace.com make use of BGP 4 which allows your server to share bandwidth from several providers. This generally means faster performance and less down time if a provider goes down.

3. Most co-location providers requires you to maintain the hardware. A hard drive dies... Hope you have a spare handy; they, most likely, will not have one. Oh. Need them to do repair it? Generally, their prices are higher than the average.

4. A large number of co-location providers charge you an hourly fee for you to spend time with your server.

A local provider to us charges you $90 per hour so that you can work on your machine. So even when you state to yourself that you can save money by not using their virtual hands service (not all have this service for being your virtual hands for hardware), you still have to pay.

5. You are responsible for insuring the equipment.

Even with that stated, if you plan right co-location can be good.

Well what's good about co-lo is that you own the servers and therefore it's your asset, so for example you owe the bank too much and go bankrupt, you can sell your servers for some cash to repay, but in dedicated, you own absolutely nothing, and the customers aren't your assets (you can't sell them), so in conclusion Co-lo is much better and cheaper, but much more hassling...

I think managed is the way to go -- your host owns and manages the servers, in their space and with their connectivity, and they are reposnsible when something goes wrong with the hardware. In some cases, they also manage the applications. Unless of course you like getting paged at 3am to re-boot your servers...

If you are doing something mission critical, managed is a good way to go - the host is responsible for hardware replacement etc. and often in charge of backups as well. When **** sh*t hits the fan and something breaks, you will be glad that you are in that situation and not one where you own the hardware and are responsible for fixing/replacing.

-Brendan