Colocating with united colo seems affordable, <100 for about 500GB of bandwidth?
Are they on Cogent?
I've read many 'not-so-good' stories about them in the forums, how are they performing now?

I thought of colocating with them :rolleyes:

All of their in is Cogent, all of their out is Internap.

From what I gather from posts about them, their network stability seems to be improving although today they have 5 minutes of downtime. Just do a search and I'm sure you'll find out some good stuff ;)

I see

Another question:
If I'm hosting a lot of sites, does a 100mbit port suits me more than a 10mbit port?

It depends. 10Mbit port is actually enough for most applications. However, 100Mbps port is good for streaming, giving you a potential to burst.

I don't see why people complain of not being able to burst more than 10mbit on unitedcolo, 10mbit is the most I can do on my RackShack servers and I never see any complaints about that.

Originally posted by Hostit4cheap
All of their in is Cogent, all of their out is Internap.

From what I've seen all of their ingress and egress traffic is currently going through HE.net (Hurricane Electric).

He.net is a regional 2nd Tier provider that pushes most of its traffic through cheap/free peering at the MAEs, NAPs, and IXs. They are good. Far, far better than Cogent.

There is NO WAY they can afford InterNAP at these prices. InterNAP is very, very, very expensive.

heh, i've seen routes via internap on my unitedcolo boxes... :P

specifically anything going to the qwest network... theres got to be others... heh... and yes it is possible to afford internap (maybe not at exactly these prices, but somewhat low)...

Originally posted by Dragoon


From what I've seen all of their ingress and egress traffic is currently going through HE.net (Hurricane Electric).

He.net is a regional 2nd Tier provider that pushes most of its traffic through cheap/free peering at the MAEs, NAPs, and IXs. They are good. Far, far better than Cogent.

There is NO WAY they can afford InterNAP at these prices. InterNAP is very, very, very expensive.

dude... why do you lie? if you aren't lying... then... talking about stuff u have no clue on is just is bad... i mean... is this what you tell clients that ask you to compete against unitedcolo?

Originally posted by Hostit4cheap
All of their in is Cogent, all of their out is Internap.

I don't see Cogent or Internap in my trace from NYC to my crappy UCG box that I can't keep an SSH connection for more then 30 seconds. :angry:

Tracing route to 66.111.46.160 over a maximum of 30 hops

1 * * * Request timed out.
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 46 ms 14 ms 12 ms dstswr1-vlan2.rh.pswynj.cv.net [67.83.249.33]
4 32 ms 12 ms 11 ms 67.83.249.1
5 43 ms 43 ms 79 ms r2-srp-1-0.cr.prnynj.cv.net [67.83.239.55]
6 12 ms 12 ms 33 ms r2-srp-13-0.wan.prnynj.cv.net [67.83.239.2]
7 27 ms 13 ms 13 ms r1-srp5-0.wan.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.12.147]
8 14 ms 27 ms 15 ms pos5-2.pr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net [167.206.8.154]
9 24 ms 14 ms 15 ms so-3-0-0.cr1.lga1.us.mfnx.net [208.185.0.237]
10 31 ms 17 ms 20 ms so-1-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.mfnx.net [208.184.233.61]
11 17 ms 19 ms 19 ms so-1-0-0.cr1.dca2.us.mfnx.net [208.184.233.125]
12 83 ms 136 ms 83 ms so-3-0-0.mpr3.sjc2.us.mfnx.net [208.184.233.133]
13 89 ms 85 ms 86 ms pos5-0.mpr1.pao1.us.mfnx.net [208.184.233.142]
14 135 ms 86 ms 113 ms 209.249.24.136.he.net [209.249.24.136]
15 112 ms 88 ms 89 ms border1-g1-2.pao1.wworks.net [198.32.176.162]
16 93 ms 138 ms 89 ms GigE-9.sfo-core1.ucg.net [66.111.47.1]
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * 93 ms 122 ms 66.111.46.160

Trace complete.

ur server just doesn't love u as all my servers do

lol

i dunno dude, i can connect/work on my servers just fine... actually... >300KB/sec downloads from my DSL... which is pretty damn good considering i ain't even in the same country as that box... lol

Hello Speckz,

It might be that the connection was at its peak. If the aggregate user is using 100% of the capacity (or greater), the switch/router will be dropping packets which eventually drop the connection. If this is the case, you might want to check with the UnitedColo if they can bump up the cap.

Hope this helps :)

So overall, is unitedcolo advisible to sign with?

This is what I was offered.
So regarding their bandwidth....?


Hi Louis,

Thank you for your interest in our company. With regards to your question, the monthly co-location fee for your 2U server is $149 with 1,000GB of data transfer. Rack space if free for 1U box. Since you have a 2U, there is an additional fee of $50 / 1U. As for bandwidth, we use a mixture of AboveNet, Williams, PAIX, Internap, and Cogent.


Best Regards,


Customer Support Team
United Colocation Group

It's ok. You may be able to burst up to 10mbit. (with more bw/mbit at a separate pricing.) Check out their bw/mbit. Ask them whether the 1TB is by traffic, or by mbits. i.e they convert it to some mbit equavilent and cap you at that mbit. Burstable bw will be a factor to consider surely.

1,000GB is about 3.2Mbps, which is a very good deal. If you want to get a bargain price, I would say go. But if you're looking for the quality side of it, I would recommend that you get more information about:
1. What is the cap on your port
2. Get an IP where yours will be in and trace the network path
3. What happens if their router/switch is down, and so on.

You'll need to make sure that you get what you think they told you what you will get.

I heard that there colo it's top class... and there dedicated it's new to the market but it's getting a top service in some months the dedicate shold be top class too...


PS : 5 minutos down time today that's ok for ervy day it will be a down time off 2,5 hours per month that's out off 720 hours for 30 days

What other companies do you all recommend?
uptime must be there, some 99.9% SLA, no cogent, and affordable

http://www.httpd.net/

Hands down. You will be able to get much better rates from a reseller..

httpd.net is also known as Foonet.

Foonet is a good company and has been around for years.

However.....

I wouldn't recommend them for web hosting. The company focuses on IRC/Shell companies. They have excellent filtering in place to stop the massive DoS attacks they get hit with but all that doesn't translate into fast or cheap connectivity.

Their only uplink is Qwest and it is very expensive. You can find providers with better connectivity at a much lower price. You also won't have to worry about the potential of an attack taking your machine down with the rest.

Originally posted by netdude
heh, i've seen routes via internap on my unitedcolo boxes... :P

specifically anything going to the qwest network... theres got to be others... heh... and yes it is possible to afford internap (maybe not at exactly these prices, but somewhat low)...



All the traffic I see to/from Qwest is going through wworks.net --> he.net --> InterNAP or WCG (Williams).

I see NO direct connection to InterNAP to/from UCG.

FYI, InterNAP is a 2nd Tier provider that offers service in various metropolitan markets across the country. They *buy* all of their connectivity directly from several major backbone providers. They do not own nor do they operate their own nationwide network. Buying transit ain't cheap. They also charge premium prices based on their claims to have developed a system to route your traffic faster.

Even at a 100Mb commitment level you are going to pay at least $300 a Mbps from InterNAP.

Explain to me how a provider that is selling at $49 can possibly make money this way?

httpd is expensive :/
Any other companies?
did someone mention about some reseller plan?
How is it like?

ALL traffic on UCG goes to wworks.net (including the stuff going over he.net)... wworks.net is the upstream provider for ucg... and as for b/w... i wouldn't be surprised if wworks is buying bandwidth in gigabit increments from internap/he.net/etc/etc/etc... cuz i mean... i personally use over 80Mbps on ucg...
------------------------
an internap route from ucg:
traceroute to www.qwest.net (204.147.80.81), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 66.111.37.1 (66.111.37.1) 1.390 ms 0.413 ms 0.382 ms
2 66.111.47.2 (66.111.47.2) 0.676 ms 0.596 ms 0.832 ms
3 border6.s5-9.digitalwire-3.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.229) 119.622 ms 177.871 ms 215.711 ms
4 core4.ge2-0-bbnet2.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.70) 3.803 ms 4.225 ms 5.607 ms
5 s6-5.paloalto-cr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.26.85) 3.496 ms 3.457 ms 3.262 ms
6 p7-1.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.77) 3.790 ms 4.308 ms 3.836 ms
7 p1-0.paix-bi1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.102) 3.333 ms 4.390 ms 3.614 ms
8 p0-0.paix-bi3.bbnplanet.net (4.0.3.129) 6.776 ms 4.139 ms 5.109 ms
9 p13-0.snjpca1-br2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.7.37) 6.052 ms 8.413 ms 6.490 ms
10 p3-0.dnvtco1-br2.bbnplanet.net (4.0.6.226) 27.823 ms 28.121 ms 27.840 ms
11 p1-0.dnvtco1-cr4.bbnplanet.net (4.24.11.46) 27.237 ms 28.002 ms 28.480 ms
12 p5-0.toucham6.bbnplanet.net (4.25.27.78) 27.536 ms 28.045 ms 30.552 ms
13 den-core-02.tamerica.net (205.171.16.17) 28.398 ms 28.082 ms 28.414 ms
14 min-core-02.tamerica.net (205.171.8.98) 63.383 ms 59.933 ms 62.571 ms
15 gig0-0-0.mpls-cust2.mpls.uswest.net (207.225.159.220) 81.199 ms 85.040 ms 60.384 ms



Originally posted by Dragoon


All the traffic I see to/from Qwest is going through wworks.net --> he.net --> InterNAP or WCG (Williams).

I see NO direct connection to InterNAP to/from UCG.

FYI, InterNAP is a 2nd Tier provider that offers service in various metropolitan markets across the country. They *buy* all of their connectivity directly from several major backbone providers. They do not own nor do they operate their own nationwide network. Buying transit ain't cheap. They also charge premium prices based on their claims to have developed a system to route your traffic faster.

Even at a 100Mb commitment level you are going to pay at least $300 a Mbps from InterNAP.

Explain to me how a provider that is selling at $49 can possibly make money this way?

I never said that UCG's upstream provider didn't have a link to InterNAP.

The original comment made in another posting was that ALL outbound traffic from UCG was via InterNAP.

An occasional and rare route, Yes. Any signifcant amount of bandwidth at the prices UCG charges, NO WAY.

Call InterNAP. They'll readily tell you just how expensive they are. 1Mbps, 100Mbps, 1Gbps, or 10Gbps it doesn't matter. They can only go so low due to the fact that they purchase all of their connectivity from other providers.

UCG is wrong to mislead customers into thinking they are going to get InterNAP for 49 bucks a month.



Originally posted by netdude
ALL traffic on UCG goes to wworks.net (including the stuff going over he.net)... wworks.net is the upstream provider for ucg... and as for b/w... i wouldn't be surprised if wworks is buying bandwidth in gigabit increments from internap/he.net/etc/etc/etc... cuz i mean... i personally use over 80Mbps on ucg...
------------------------

Maybe they do know their business. Let's just give it a rest and stop knocking them. After all they have been in the colocation business for a while. I am sure they know their maths. (whoops I could be wrong here ....) anyway, they are still providing 99$ plans which is not too bad.

I certainly hope they know their business. It'd be really bad if for whatever reason UCG suddenly thought they were a Grocery Store or a Dry Cleaner instead of an ISP. ;)

I wasn't knocking them. I was point out a hard fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of this forum to discuss dedicated servers and the providers that offer them?

If a company is misrepresenting itself shouldn't it be known? If a company is unstable or in some way providing less than advertised don't we, as consumers, have a right to voice our disappointment and let others know?

Considering UCG has been in this business for "a while", 3 months, I'm certain that this vast amount of experience has enabled them to develope some type of magical means that enables them to purchase bandwidth from PREMIUM providers at prices that all others on this planet can only dream of.


Originally posted by silversurfer
Maybe they do know their business. Let's just give it a rest and stop knocking them. After all they have been in the colocation business for a while. I am sure they know their maths. (whoops I could be wrong here ....) anyway, they are still providing 99$ plans which is not too bad.

PS. $49, $99, or even $199 won't pay a InterNAP bill.

Originally posted by Dragoon

FYI, InterNAP is a 2nd Tier provider that offers service in various metropolitan markets across the country.

Even at a 100Mb commitment level you are going to pay at least $300 a Mbps from InterNAP.


InterNAP is not a Tier2 provider. I'd class it as Tier1 provider.

You *can* get direct and pure InterNAP bandwidth with 100Mbit prepaid for less than $300/mbit :)

# traceroute internap.com
traceroute to internap.com (63.251.170.35), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets

3 border6.s5-9.digitalwire-3.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.61.229) 223.713 ms 122.603 ms 199.841 ms
4 core3.ge0-0-bbnet1.sfo.pnap.net (63.251.63.3) 3.947 ms 4.098 ms 4.967 ms
5 12.126.195.77 (12.126.195.77) 4.336 ms 4.667 ms 4.281 ms
6 gbr1-p70.sffca.ip.att.net (12.123.13.58) 5.573 ms 4.190 ms 4.030 ms
7 gbr4-p00.sffca.ip.att.net (12.122.5.250) 4.500 ms 4.256 ms 4.643 ms
8 gbr3-p30.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.122.2.198) 20.732 ms 20.155 ms 19.887 ms
9 gbr2-p10.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.122.5.166) 19.006 ms 18.655 ms 19.031 ms
10 gar1-p370.st6wa.ip.att.net (12.123.44.62) 20.190 ms 20.503 ms 20.292 ms
11 serial54.att.gw.sef.pnap.net (12.127.79.54) 19.596 ms 20.361 ms 20.092 ms
12 border5.ge4-1-bbnet2.sef.pnap.net (63.251.160.74) 22.542 ms 21.487 ms 43.707 ms
13 www1.internap.com (63.251.170.35) 19.207 ms 21.713 ms 21.044 ms


Thats from a unitedcolo box :)

To UnitedColo

2 ge1-3-cr01.lax01.mzima.net (64.235.224.225) 1.263 ms 1.199 ms 1.137 ms
3 ge1-0-br01.lax01.mzima.net (66.250.60.73) 0.422 ms 0.287 ms 0.259 ms
4 fa-1-2-0.a02.lsanca02.us.ra.verio.net (209.189.126.241) 0.418 ms 0.524 ms
0.545 ms
5 xe-1-0-0.r20.lsanca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.29.120) 0.858 ms 0.491 ms
0.482 ms
6 p16-5-0-0.r01.mlpsca01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.97) 11.329 ms 11.743 ms
11.384 ms
7 p16-0-0-0.r00.snjsca05.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.78) 11.626 ms 11.260 ms
11.245 ms
8 p4-1-0.r02.snjsca05.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.2.24) 11.140 ms 11.731 ms 11
.301 ms
9 mwa.he.net (198.32.200.17) 11.028 ms 10.976 ms 11.224 ms
10 gige-g0-0-2.gsr12008.pao.he.net (216.218.132.1) 10.898 ms 11.260 ms 10.88
1 ms
11 border1-g1-2.pao1.wworks.net (198.32.176.162) 12.806 ms 12.167 ms 12.009
ms
12 GigE-9.sfo-core1.ucg.net (66.111.47.1) 12.232 ms 12.179 ms 12.039 ms
13 www.unitedcolo.com (66.111.32.10) 12.566 ms 12.341 ms 12.416 ms

internap can be had for 225$ mbps and maybe lower :) but thats at gig commit

On a GIGe commit you are looking at around $225 as the lowest depending on your negotiating skills with the sales team...

-Shazad

In my opinion (I might be wrong) , $225/Mbit is a little high for a gigE committment. :(

I've heard much lower quotes than $225/Mbit. Also, with Internap in the financial trouble it's in (think Cogent is in trouble, think again) I can't imagine it's sales reps would be that firm.

I got a quote from InterNAP at $200/meg with a 10Mbps commit. They said they could go lower with higher commitments. You might try a different sales rep. :)

That's what I thought ... I believe they can go lower.