hi,

it seems to me that colocation is more expensive than dedicated server, which is unreasonable to me. Why?

let me see, RackShack.net $99/month for 400 gb bw, with server and software and management. Why can not anybody give me a colocation deal at $50/month with 400 gb bw?

If not, why?

thanks

charlie.

No one wants to colo anymore places taht do are bursting at tehre seems with boxes and places like rack shack dont want to deal with shipping machines. Also if something were to happen to the machine and it was there fault they are liable... This is just what ive heard. Please dont flame me.

Originally posted by alyui8
hi,

it seems to me that colocation is more expensive than dedicated server, which is unreasonable to me. Why?

let me see, RackShack.net $99/month for 400 gb bw, with server and software and management. Why can not anybody give me a colocation deal at $50/month with 400 gb bw?

If not, why?

thanks

charlie.

Rackshack is by no means a measuring stick for services. Also, rackshack heavily resells, if you amoritize the value of their servers of 24 months (2 years), the servers cost around $14/mo. Theres a few providers that will give you 85/mo colocation :), probably not with 400gb of bandwidth, but thats because rackshack heavily oversells.

IMO, the companies who offer cheapo servers do not offer co-location and companies offering cheapo servers oversell servers but they can not oversell rack space.

just my $0.02

but they charge you much more for a better machine, for the same size and bandwidth.

Originally posted by mahinder
IMO, the companies who offer cheapo servers do not offer co-location and companies offering cheapo servers oversell servers but they can not oversell rack space.

just my $0.02
I agree. Rackshack completely oversells their bandwidth. But if they offered colocation, they couldn't oversell the space. And in colocation, you can pay for only the bandwidth you use(usually 512kbps, 1mbps, ect...), so even Rackshack would have to charge more than for what they do with their dedicated servers.

The key is to buy a lot of space. You can't get the best deal by buying 1U of space and some bandwidth. If you want to get space cheaply, get 1/2 rack or full rack. Then, ONLY pay for the bandwidth you use, and you can save far more in the long run than going with Rackshack.(that is, if you use the space in the full rack.:D)

And in colocation, you can pay for only the bandwidth you use(usually 512kbps, 1mbps, ect...), so even Rackshack would have to charge more than for what they do with their dedicated serversWell, not really. There are companies like efreeservers that do the same thing, they oversell BW.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Well, not really. There are companies like efreeservers that do the same thing, they oversell BW.
EFreeservers.com does not offer colocation, it's Econtinents.com and how do they oversell bandwidth?

EFreeservers.com does not offer colocation, it's Econtinents.comSame difference :) Check out their colo packages; Data Transfer: 1.5Mbps (500GB) - $300.00 (smallest package)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Same difference :) Check out their colo packages; Data Transfer: 1.5Mbps (500GB) - $300.00 (smallest package)
Well, I wouldn't colocate with them anyways. They seemed to be geared to much higher sites, seeing how their lowest plan is 500GB. But from comments on this site, they use some Cogent bandwidth, so they're actually charging quite a bit for Cogent.

Greetings:

"let me see, RackShack.net $99/month for 400 gb bw, with server and software and management. Why can not anybody give me a colocation deal at $50/month with 400 gb bw?"

Rackshack.net has no performance SLA.

Rackshack.net has no hardware repair/replacement guarantee.

Rackshack.net has no uptime guarantee.

Rackshack.net is owned by Everyone's Internet, and it is probably E.I. that has excess bandwidth that Rashack.net gets cheaply or can buy cheaply because of the size of the combined operation.

And there's no guarantee that overselling is not taking place.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I would not use Rackshack.net as a benchmark for what can be done dedicated or co.

We do have a rackshack.net server, and are consider additional ones (the current one is basically for development work); so I'm not stating the above to bash them... just point out that they are not exactly a benchmark company for the purposes you point out.

Thank you.

.

Co-location is more expensive to provide than server leasing.

With co-location you end up with a room full of strange machines, all with different configurations,etc. And someone has to know how to reboot all of them, and what their quirks are. Plus, customers frequently need to visit their machines and do things to them.

With server leasing like Rackshack, you have nothing but your servers, set up to your configuration standards, and customers never need to enter your data center.

Also to point out, one thing that was only breifly mentioned in the thread.

With dedicated servers you can easily oversell bandwidth, as only 5% or maybe 10% will use the full alotment of bandwidth.

However, with co-location, why am I going to go buy 400gb of bandwidth when I only need 50? I'm going to buy 50 and use 50.

So on co-location i'd say it'd be closer to 80% of the customers use their full or close to their full alotment that they purchase.

Dont forget the hassle of getting, and setting up every single server. You cant do anything in batches for colocation "ok Jim, we've been gathering servers in the mail for 2 weeks now, we'll run a batch, and your server will go up next week!". It just doesen't work :D. Colocation can be cheaper then dedicated if you do it right and if your needs are relatively moderate. Colo providers often bend a lot further over to do stuff, i mean we've given complete tours of the facility (people flying in from out of town at that) for our $95/mo package.... Go tell rackshack you're interested in buying a 99/mo server package but want a tour of the facilities first :D.

As Daniel mentioned... the primary if not only reason colo is more expensive because people who colo their own servers have a purpose and need for that particular machine and they know exactly how much bandwidth they need or will be needing.

If everyone was to use all 400 gigs of bw at Rackshack in one month, it would bring them to their knees both in performance and in a big fat bandwidth bill. But they know most people don't use 400 gigs of bandwidth... it's just a marketing plan. But a person that wants to spend money on a machine to have colo'd some where will only buy what they will be using.. so overselling doens't work with colo.

if RS had more customers like myself (pushing 2MB/s up to 6MB/s for the the last 24hours) they would collapse ;)

From reading RS's forums it appears they are getting ready to offer colocation. I think the deal will probably be either $49 - $99 a month for 1u space and 300-500 or more gb bw.