Maybe I'm off base here, but I've been surprised at the lack of quality servers being offered for dedicated hosting.

It seems that many people accept the idea of a server with many potential single points of failure (one hard drive, non-ECC RAM, non-redundant power supplies, etc). I'd like to know what you think about this, and why so many people utilize servers like this (beyond just being cheap).

Have most people not experienced any problems running on this type of setup?

Rackshack Compaqs are nice...

I think that since RS started the pricewar well over a year ago other companies have been struggling to provide sub-$100 servers with 300 GB bandwidth as well in order to compete.

If you do that something has to give...
Quality of the hardware is probably the first that goes overboard. But that's just my guess.

So don't blame it on the providers, blame it un us who want $ 99 servers ;)

Yeah, that makes sense; I'm just surprised at the pervasiveness of it.

The biggest thing I've been surprised at is the DASDI arena. For so many things, faster disk systems can make incredible differences. I'd prefer a Pentium II with a hardware RAID controller and fast disks over any P-4 with a single IDE spindle. (I know from experience that this is where the real performance is found for many typical situations.)

For these very reasons, I've been leaning heavily to co-lo as my long term approach over dedicated. Spec the box to my liking and I can quit complaining, right?

unfortunately, performance parts (like raid) are what cost. And with bandwidth costing that much (even with the sharp drop in the past year) it is not possible to provide better parts.

Typically, most
1. do not want to pay setup (which historically is usually meant for initial hardware purchase)
2. want loads of bandwidth (a few hundred gb)
3. want fast speeds
4. want good hardware etc.

all for 99 and below. Perhaps I will pay a bit more for more.

ServerGuys: there are some host which will customise the machine to your liking. As long as you are willing to pay.

Originally posted by ServerGuys
It seems that many people accept the idea of a server with many potential single points of failure (one hard drive, non-ECC RAM, non-redundant power supplies, etc)
Rather than going co-lo, maybe a host with an SLA on hardware is a better idea. My concern with co-lo is "what happens if the hardware breaks, given that I own it and the host does not feel responsible to fix it in a hurry". If you were to select a dedicated server host who has a SLA on their hardware, then you could feel comfortable with only a single PSU and the like.

However, ample RAM, and redundant/backup HDD's are something that you don't want to skimp on. I'm not so sure about ECC RAM, and many of the newer IDE HDD's approach SCSI performance in alot of areas where they would be used in a web server, so I don't think there is such a big gap between IDE and SCSI like there was a few years ago.

Originally posted by silversurfer
Typically, most
1. do not want to pay setup (which historically is usually meant for initial hardware purchase)
2. want loads of bandwidth (a few hundred gb)
3. want fast speeds
4. want good hardware etc.

all for 99 and below. Perhaps I will pay a bit more for more.
1. Personally I don't mind a setup, if it means that I get extras, like dual CPU's, extra RAM, or redundant drives.
2. Again, personally, I know that most of our servers are not going to use 500Gb, so I'd rather have a nice stable and reliable network. But at the same time smaller limits like 20 or 50Gb are a little too low.
3. If you are talking about CPU speeds - I think this is one major area where things around here are wrong. For a webserver, the latest-fastest-wizbang-P4-Athlon-mega-Ghz CPU may simply not be appropriate or required. For servers with not much load a slower CPU will probably not even be the system-bottleneck. For higher load servers a dual system would be a much better choice, even if the dual CPUs are a slower speed.

Unfortunately I must admit that $99/m seems to have become a benchmark, especially when I'm shopping for a server for myself. ;)

Originally posted by Wolfy

Rather than going co-lo, maybe a host with an SLA on hardware is a better idea. My concern with co-lo is "what happens if the hardware breaks, given that I own it and the host does not feel responsible to fix it in a hurry".

This is exactly why I've pretty much settled on a co-lo provider nearby. I live in central Florida, and I've found two good options locally. If something goes wrong, I want 24x7 access myself to my server. (The network weenie in me is showing through.)

cool!so introduce some good and cheap webhosting url pzl