Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : colo router question

[bjseiler]

I have only used dedicated providers so this is a "newbie colo" question.

If you colocate and you lease a 1/2 a rack, do most colo facilities give you a connection for each computer you put in your space or do you have to buy your own router/switch to handle the link they give you and then you have to handle the management of your servers?

Does anyone just take a linux/freebsd box and throw 4 nics in it and use that to handle it or do most people just buy a Cisco?

If I need to set up 3-4 web server/mail boxes and 2 mysql boxes, is it worth it to colo or should I just get a bunch of dedicated machines?

This seems to be in a so so region where it may or may not be worth it to colo.

[zerph]

You are normally provided with one fast ethernet hand off and power. You are responsible for your own router or switch as well as management of everything.

If your that small it doesn't really matter much if you use a cisco or a fbsd box.

[DD-SNC]

And on top of what Nick said, some providers charge an additional fee per cross-connect due to the situation of the service. When you colo, particularly a 1/2 rack, most of the time it's in your best interest to control everything.

[IllusionSoft]

You wont really need a router initially, so all you'll need is like a switch.

[kwimberl]

Your least cost will be to get a 1U switch.

[bjseiler]

can you give me an example of a 1U switch so I can go searching at ebay? Thanks.

[NACmwinship]

If this is all for yourself of one customer you most likely won't need it to be SNMPable so you can probably get away with a cheapo linksys or netgear switch. If you get a small one you can probably place it on top of your servers and not eat up any rackspace.

[kwimberl]

It depends on whether you care about graphs and such. If not, get a cheapy. If so, go cisco. I recommend a cisco 2924. You should be able to find them on Ebay.

[bjseiler]

This would just be for one system so I really do not care about graphs, etc. I will check out the 2924, thanks.

[porcupine]

might even want to look at a 1924, difference being the individual ports only get 10mbps, the uplink(s) get 100mbps, suitable for most racks, and about 1/2 - 1/5 the price of a 2924.

[robinbalen]

If you only need to host one server, it may be easier and cheaper to just co-locate that box, rather than rent half a rack and purchase a switch etc etc...

~robin

[bjseiler]

The whole "system" will be about 5 boxes though, that is why I need to rent the 1/2 rack.

[cbtrussell]

Pick up a 1924 or 2924. I use 1924's for some of my customers, I've gotten them for as little as 100 bucks each. Excellent value, and practically plug 'n play.

Brandon

[ClusterMania]

Cisco 2924 have basic layer 3? Or is it better to get a extreme networks summit 24 switch instead?

[cbtrussell]

That's a $400 vs. $2000 (used) question. If you want to do real layer 3 you'd have to get a Summit 24e3, considerably more expensive. I was using 1924 and 2924's, but as a result of a post I made on here a month or two back, have been eyeing the Extreme gear pretty closely. It looks good.

Brandon