Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread: help me define my needs better
-
01-05-2005, 04:43 PM #1New Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 3
help me define my needs better
Some partners and I do engineering design on the side. We all log in interactively to the same computer to do our work. Right now, this computer is sitting in someone's apartment on a DSL line. We figure the costs of running a computer in an apartment (1.5 Mbit SDSL, power, a/c, etc.) easily make colocation a good idea.
The problem is: none of us know where to begin. We'd be looking for a modest amount of bandwidth (maybe 200GB/mo or a few Mbit), but of very low latency since we use this computer interactlvely. Several of us use a DSL company that routes through level(3), so I imagine a colo who does the same would be good. So, I have two questions:
1) Are there any obvious flaws with colocating our server for this purpose? Most people seem to run web servers or play games.
2) What is the right terminology to describe this to a colo provider, and what sorts of things should I look for?
Thanks!
-
01-05-2005, 05:08 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Sioux Falls, SD
- Posts
- 1,282
You are pretty much right on par with everything. You just need to find a facility that is geo-centric to the users that'll be logging in to it. Preferably somewhere in the same town/city also with good connectivity to level3. (The company doesn't necessarily have to be directly connected to level3)
When you find a prospective provider, do some pings/traceroutes to some equipment that'll be "near" where your server would go and make sure it isn't too latent.James Cornman
365 Data Centers - AS19151/AS29838
Colocation • Network Connectivity • Managed Infrastructure Services
-
01-06-2005, 07:59 PM #3WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 168
If your all in the same general region, you may want to consider calling the local ISP's in that neck of the woods to see if they would bundle DSL with a colo option.
The larger DSL providers aren't going to cut you a deal or even offer that kind of service, but a lot of regional folks may be willing to, throw in static addresses on your DSL lines(for a little added security for your server, and handle your DNS for you at no cost.Jay Smith - Evocative Data Centers
http://www.evocative.com
(888)365-2656 - sales@evocative.com
Los Angeles - San Jose - Emeryville - Phoenix - Dallas - Northern Virginia
-
01-07-2005, 01:02 AM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Posts
- 1,304
Here is a thought:
What is it about a dedicated server you need?
Perhaps a VPS would suit you? That would be very low cost, and if your CPU / memory / Disk space needs are modest that would be a great way to get a low-cost, high availability server.
Else, there are plenty of good dedicated server providers out there. I dont see the point of colocating one box, just because you have no economies of scale there.
Then again, I dont know how mission critical this project is.. perhaps you do not want ANYONE touching the box under any conditions."The only difference between a poor person and a rich person is what they do in their spare time."
"If youth is wasted on the young, then retirement is wasted on the old"
-
01-07-2005, 04:29 AM #5New Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 3
Thanks to everyone for the replies. Every post has been helpful!
Unfortunately, our CPU and memory loads would stress just about any computer imaginable.
I think this would rule out any sort of shared hosting (?). Between dedicated hosting and colocation, price is the only real consideration. Is it possible to find a high-end dedicated server for less than the cost of colocating a pre-existing one?
-
01-07-2005, 05:24 AM #6CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
You're far better off with co-location if you're looking to host a high end server and desire a robust, low latency connection. It's highly unlikely that you will find a high end dedicated from a decent provider that comes anywhere close to co-location pricing.
-
01-07-2005, 11:35 AM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA
- Posts
- 48
Originally posted by NSCNAP Jeff
You're far better off with co-location if you're looking to host a high end server and desire a robust, low latency connection. It's highly unlikely that you will find a high end dedicated from a decent provider that comes anywhere close to co-location pricing.
One would think that a dual proc box with like 2-4Gb of RAM and dual SCSI drives would be able to handle most of what they're doing. That'd run you around $300 a month at mots dedicated server places I've seen. I don't think you could find a colocation for in that range.
-
01-07-2005, 11:45 AM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- New York City
- Posts
- 995
Sure, if they only wanted 1U and a few mbit, $300 is certainly not out of the question. A lot of people, myself included, prefer to own their own hardware.
SamSam Machiz / Director, Product Development / Ubersmith
smachiz[at]ubersmith.com / [direct] 212-812-4194
-
01-07-2005, 03:11 PM #9Newbie
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Posts
- 5
You all ready have the terminology you need to talk with a data center about colocation.
I think SMachiz hit the nail on the head when he said he prefers to manage his own hardware. Do you want somebody else managing the box, or is just having a person there to reboot/cycle power enough for you? Most colocation includes (or should include) free low-level maintenance.
Most dedicated providers will build a custom box to your specs, but you won't own it. You're leasing it. It's an operating expense rather than an asset.
Colocation allows you to build and manage your own box and then take advantage of their data and power uptime.
Location is important if you're looking to colocate. It's not so important on the dedicated side.
I hope that helps!