Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    75

    Colo vs Dedicated Server

    How do you decide to colo your own server vs rent one from a dedicated server provider? Understanding that I am only looking to host 1 server.

    Seems the cost to rent 1U of space is about the same as renting a dedicated server, but without the cost of purchasing the hardware.

    What the the pros/cons of colo vs dedicated?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    393
    Pros of collocating is that you own the hardware, you can get much better collocating costs as well, and is much cheaper in the long term. Cons are that when your hardware fails, you have to pay to have it fixed. Parts + remote hands.

    Pros of having a dedicated server is that you don't have to worry about expensive hardware replacement costs if anything fails. Cons are it is normally more expensive monthly with barely any buydowns.

  3. #3
    I would say that with colocation you will be looking at more responsibility and up front cost. When colocating a server you will need to pay to buy the server, pay every month to colocate the server in a datacenter, for spare parts in case any parts die, and remote hands if needed.

    With a dedicated server you just need to worry about paying the bill to the provider. Everything is covered by the provider (well should be at least).

    For a single server I would recommend just renting one from a provider unless you are looking for a complex setup.
    NewYorkCityServers.com - Specializing In Dedicated Servers and Financial Hosting
    True Enterprise Service, Tier 3 Manhattan Datacenter, 100+ Gbps Network, 100% Uptime Guarantee, 24x7 Support - Email, Tickets, Phone and Live Chat
    Bandwidth Graphs, Remote Power Control, Automated OS Re-installs, Secured IPMI+KVM Included With Every Server

  4. #4
    From the financial perspective for 1 server:

    more expensive hardware and less b/w usage (enterprise email server) go Colo
    less expensive hardware and b/w hungry application (download forum or something like that) go dedicated.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Ten1/0/2
    Posts
    2,529
    If you have tried several dedi providers and never been totally satisfied, go colo

    Dedicated if you do not plan on keeping the server for at least 18 months.

    Co-Lo if you know you will be keeping the server for more than 18 mths and that the server will still do what you require of it in 2-3 years time.
    CPanel Shared and Reseller Hosting, OpenVZ VPS Hosting. West Coast (LA) Servers and Nodes
    Running Linux since 1.0.8 Kernel!
    Providing Internet Services since 1995 and Hosting Since 2004

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    776
    I prefer to colo my own gear, and doing it locally. I know exactly what is in the server, and I will often stress test the gear before I install it. If anything goes wrong I just hop in my car and drive to the datacenter.
    || Higher Intellect || Half a million documents and climbing.
    || OMGWTFBBQ || Nothing of value here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,449
    From my experience, the big advantage to colo is the quality of hardware. You know exactly what you have. I've found many of the low-cost dedicated providers, and even many high-end dedicated providers will use very low quality hardware, particularly disk drives, so they tend to fail a lot.

    As also mentioned, when looking for only a single server you will not see much cost savings by choosing colo, but if you expand to multiple servers, the more you add, the more savings you'll see.

  8. #8
    Depending on your objectives, there are a lot of variables which could help your decision making process. Like everyone else said, there are a lot more personal involvement/cost with colo.

    If the objective is to just have a server online, I'd go ahead and get a server from Hurricane Electric. They generally charge you a one time $350 for the server and only $150 MRC for a 100 Mbps connection. Now you don't have to worry about other potential issues that may arise. Good thing about that is you don't pay for the server any more, on the downside you don't own the server even though you paid $350.

    I've got plenty of servers structured this way and couldn't be happier! Support is just outstanding.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    75
    Where can I find this server from Hurricane Electric?

  10. #10
    You can request a quote here for the configuration you need: http://he.net/cgi-bin/dedicated_quote
    NewYorkCityServers.com - Specializing In Dedicated Servers and Financial Hosting
    True Enterprise Service, Tier 3 Manhattan Datacenter, 100+ Gbps Network, 100% Uptime Guarantee, 24x7 Support - Email, Tickets, Phone and Live Chat
    Bandwidth Graphs, Remote Power Control, Automated OS Re-installs, Secured IPMI+KVM Included With Every Server

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by tr0gd0r View Post
    Where can I find this server from Hurricane Electric?
    Call sales and they will help you. Ask for Valerie; she's always helpful.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ashburn, Virginia
    Posts
    653
    In the end, it always comes down to your specific needs and requirements.
    LionLink Networks
    Ashburn Data Center Colocation, Infrastructure Solutions, and Premium Optimized Connectivity
    Infrastructure and Colocation Solutions For All Sizes - Managed Services - Dedicated Servers - Data Center Consulting - Now POP'd @ RagingWire! | www.lionlink.net | sales@lionlink.net | (844) DATA-CENTER | Ashburn Colocation

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    England and Wales
    Posts
    31
    It purely depensd on where you are going to colocate..
    I believe US colocations are too expensive if we want to compare them with dedicated servers offers (by mean of bandwidth)
    unlike Europeans who might offer great bandwidth, but power is another factor you will need to take into account before thinking about Europe..

    In my opinion, it also depends on the work you are going to do..
    Virtualisation, hosting, game server?

    A friend of mine said when you see dedicated servers offer starting from teens of euros, thinking about colocation is something incompetetive pricewise..

    Good luck though

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by lionlink-dot-net View Post
    In the end, it always comes down to your specific needs and requirements.
    Yup. If it's only one server without anything fancy, you'll be fine with a dedicated.

    If you're doing something totally unique with hardware or networking, you might look to colo.

    If you thinking long-term with at least a couple of servers, then I would definitely suggest colocating. Then again, there are downsides as well.

    Comparing apples and oranges won't work. Use the right fruit for the job (or craving? It's late ).

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    165
    For example, we use Colo over dedicated because our servers are someone special in that they have hardware raid cards and 12 disks in a two u supermicro chassis. Weve gotten many quotes for many providers and for a dedicated server with these specs, it always ends up being very expensive to the point where after 1.5 years Colo comes out cheaper including initial costs. (usually 2-400mbit bw also per server/colo)

    Also with Colo you need a factor in high-quality shipping from your location to the Colo, for 2 U server this normally ends up costing d $150-$200 and we request that the entire package is double boxed with bubble wrap or peanuts in between the double boxes. (from USA to USA..intraUSA destination or source for shipping doesn't seen to change the shipping cost much, so have it packed very well)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    101
    Whether you are talking one server or 100, the "do it yourself" path is almost always cheaper if you have the experience and time to invest; however, the question becomes is it worth it to you to do the work or is your time better spent elsewhere, say on sales and marketing? Is it more efficient to have a service provider do it as opposed to hiring an engineer? Most people underestimate the cost of doing it themselves, and when you are talking a single server, you are only going to save pennies, so what's your time worth and what's the trade off? It's a simple cost assessment.
    Everett Thompson, CEO - "Largest list of data centers on the planet." Strategy, Design, Brokerage, Finance
    US Data Center List
    International Data Center List

  17. #17
    I'd have to say before I got in the business I was a client and my decision was weighed between upfront costs of buying a server, shipping, setup and remote hands costs to save on the MRC as opposed to a higher MRC.

    Another thing is privacy. If you rent a dedicated server you don't own hardware. If a drive fails they'll replace it but who knows what they'll do with the drive or the information on it. Lots of people don't care but its something to consider.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    33
    if you are just hosting some regular site, use dedicated server. if you need more crontrol on data or hardware, use colocation

  19. #19
    For one server, go with dedicated, unless you need a high-spec/odd config.

  20. #20
    Dedicated 100%. Its better is almost every scenario. If you only use it short term (you never know) then nothing lost as you didn’t invest in the equipment. If you use it long term you can upgrade whenever you need and don’t lose money in the outdated or upgrading hardware. If the hardware has a problem it’s not your problem. I mean the only reason you buy a house is it will be worth something later to sell. Not the case with a server as it will be worth nothing in 6 months – 1 year.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by zgreyman View Post
    Dedicated 100%. Its better is almost every scenario. If you only use it short term (you never know) then nothing lost as you didn’t invest in the equipment. If you use it long term you can upgrade whenever you need and don’t lose money in the outdated or upgrading hardware. If the hardware has a problem it’s not your problem. I mean the only reason you buy a house is it will be worth something later to sell. Not the case with a server as it will be worth nothing in 6 months – 1 year.
    In the long run, leased servers are almost always more expensive.

    Why are you comparing a server to a house...?
    ~ @PreetamJinka

  22. #22
    Why not try Cloud!

Similar Threads

  1. dedicated server +colo ?
    By tynman in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 03:01 AM
  2. Colo vs dedicated server
    By Michael123 in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-15-2004, 01:51 PM
  3. Colo vs Dedicated Server
    By eil1 in forum Colocation, Data Centers, IP Space and Networks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-26-2004, 06:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •