How do you choose a server location? Do you just go with a reputable data center, or try to find one close to home?

It seems to me that since connectivity is the primary goal for a server, that perhaps weather and geographical location should be considered.

Would you want a server in California which is prone to earthquakes and has power shortages?

What about New York City? We all know what can happen there.

Then, there's Kansas City, which is the largest major city near the middle of the US that I can think of; but there you have the probability of flood disasters.

Also, does a city like Atlanta, just because it's larger, necessarily have better connections than a smaller city such as Memphis?

Originally posted by chrisb
How do you choose a server location? Do you just got with a reputable data center or try to find one close to home?

It seems to me that since connectivity is the primary goal for a server, that perhaps weather and geographical location should be considered.

Would you want a server in California which is prone to earthquakes and has a power shortage?

What about New York City? We all know what can happen there.

Then, there's Kansas City, which is the largest major city near the middle of the US that I can think of; but there you have the probability of flood disasters.

Also, does a city like Atlanta, just because it's larger, necessarily have better connections than a smaller city such as Memphis? Certainly not the first time. But, I don't think I understand your point.

for us it was reputation and connectivity, and therefore NAC. No regrets at all.

Greg Moore

And don't forget that a good DC will have contingency plans in place (i.e. power shortage -> backup generator, earthquake - earthquake proofing) etc. General geographical issues should not affect a DC quite so much, but it is certainly worth some thought.

I don't know about NAC. They've had some probs lately.

Not from where we're sitting. Our servers haven't experienced any network downtime (and yes I'm the first to check when I see a thread here about NAC).

About the only 'server down' issues we ever get are thanks to Roadrunner (ISP), and mainly around the Chicago area. We have a couple of customers that are sure to let us know the moment they think the servers are even thinking of not being available :)

So yes, I've read the threads, and there's no doubt some people are experiencing an issue, but I can only speak from personal experience, and say that NAC is an excellent datacenter, and worth every dime.

We have far more support tickets for Microsoft Frontpage than we do with connectivity :D

Greg Moore

In all fairness, I was going by what Jason from MEhost posted here. Maybe the prob was pwebtech?

Originally posted by akashik
We have far more support tickets for Microsoft Frontpage than we do with connectivity :D
lol, doesn't everybody though? :D

touche' :) Bad example maybe...

Greg Moore

Well i dont think anyone would waste there time building a multi-million dollar data center in gaston south carolina next to the turkey shoot....

So basically if you want a great facility its going to be located in major parts of the world, which for some odd reason is where the major desasters occur?!?!

But nowhere is secure from power outs, earthquakes, floods, etc... i think it should be based on the facilities contengent plan for such events and there network structure..

About it being close to home, that depends on whether or not you intend on doing most of the work on hands or allowing the remote hands tech.s to do things for you.. it can certainly be expensive to hire remote hands, but in many cases not as expenses as traveling across the country every other week...

As far as close to home, well it doesnt do you any good to have a server colocated in a facility down the road if the network sucks.. so its a balance of the two you can really have your cake and eat it too when desciding on a data facility unless your willing to pack up and move...

$H1T happens. Just make sure they have enough toilet paper.


Hobo metaphor #9365023.

Originally posted by akashik
for us it was reputation and connectivity, and therefore NAC. No regrets at all.


We had the privilege to review about 8-10 proposals when we were looking to move out to a new datacenter. After 6 weeks of reviewing and visiting the dc, we decided to go with Internap. Now, if you think NAC is good for its connectivity, you have not experienced how Internap is :) Most importantly, their NOC people/support. One day, we were testing one of our ethernet drops (we have 2x100 Mbps ethernet drops from their router) by plugging it out. Within literary several minutes somebody from their NOC call us to make sure that everything is ok. Now ... that's one of the reason why we love Internap. Not only does their network is rock solid, their support is unbelievable.

I have never been happier with our decision to be a direct Internap customer.

To answer Chris question: for me, the most important aspect on choosing where the server should be located is the geographical distance and the 24/7 physical access. This is to ensure that I can gain control over any of my equipments (in case anything happen) within the shortest possible time frame without the need to depend on some remote hand/eye support. The worry about flood, earth quake, security, etc I leave it to the data center. All carrier grade datacenter should have measures to take into account these things.

Originally posted by FHDave
One day, we were testing one of our ethernet drops (we have 2x100 Mbps ethernet drops from their router) by plugging it out. Within literary several minutes somebody from their NOC call us to make sure that everything is ok. Now ... that's one of the reason why we love Internap. Not only does their network is rock solid, their support is unbelievable.

Now that's impressive! You seem entirely satisfied with InterNap. That's always a good thing to hear...;)

I always thought that phoenix AZ would be the best place if considering natural disasters. Except for the HOTTT summers!!

lol i doubt oklahoma has any good datecenters but only thing happen here is a tornado every once in a while and um they could build an underground datacenter and all problems solved but then again you would have to get some good providers here lol dont know what they have and dont have :D

2 things I guess.

I think the most important thing is having access to your servers. Which would mean having your datacenter near by. Twice I've had to get to my servers, and both those times I was pretty glad they were just a few minutes away.

As for location, Alberta Canada. Without a doubt.

Seismically stable, climate isn't extreme, only natural "disasters" are tornados, which rarely happen on any serious level. Bandwidth in Edmonton and Calgary goes right to Seattle and Vancouver which have even bigger pipes.

Colocation facilities are EVERYWHERE. Telus and AT&T are the big ones. (I'm at AT&T)

So, I guess my two points contradict one another if you're not lucky enough to live here.. Oh well.

Actually any place in Canada can be a good location to have a data center. When you come to think about it; when was the last time a large tornadoe, hurricane, flood, landslide, and/or earthquake swept thru a large Canadian city? Well the last semi-large "disaster" was the Quebec ice storm.

I suppose the only big problem that you could expect from using a Canadian data center, is that bandwidth is outrageously expensive. But I'm sure if you want your servers to be secured then you're going to have to pay... :rolleyes:

[edited for spelling errors...]

the bandwidth may be expensive, but if you are paying in american dollars, you already get around 15% better pricing due to the exchange rate.