Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : Colo vs Dedicated Bandwidth?

[Stable]

I am looking for someplace to Colocate a server and I have been noticing a steady pattern of dedicated hosting allowing a lot more bandwidth transfer than server colocation. Is there any real reason for this? Other than $$

I don't understand this, as far as I can see the only difference is who owns the server! I was just checking out a site that for $119 I can colocate my server and get 100MB of transfer OR for $99 I can get one of their dedicated servers and 750MB of monthly transfer! Also this place seems to only offer Red Hat Linux and due to the fact that RH sucks, I'd much rather have FreeBSD installed(but that's for another forum).

Seems kind of strange to me since by providing my own server, it eliminates the need for them to pay for a server for me to use.

Any recommendations on a good Colo Facility would be welcome. I'd prefer they be in or around NYC, but it is not necessary, especially since the one i quoted those prices from is actually on the West Coast.

The other option that I am considering is Burst.net, though I keep seeing mixed reactions about them.


Thanks

[Rusty500]

There have been many threads about this; you might want to look around on WHT.

The basic idea is that, more often than not, those users in the market for dedicated servers are low-end, and will typically not use most of the transfer provided. Colocation users are more often considered "power users" who build their own servers, and know / purchase exactly what they need.

This doesn't always hold true, but does in many cases. Some dedicated providers (though not all) will also attempt to "get you" on add-ons and hardware upgrades (large monthly fees for more RAM, etc.).

If you look a little bit harder, I think you will find some generous colocation deals that provide more than 100GB of transfer for $99.

Best wishes,
Russell

[pmabraham]

Greetings:

HostRemote, Inflow, Switch and Data are good companies to check out in the NY, NJ, and Philadelphia area.

Please note that at most solid, don't go out of business tomorrow, co-location companies you will most likely pay more than at Rackshack.net.

Most solid co-location providers have to deal with on-site security (not a concern for companies like Rackshack.net where customers are not allowed on site) and work with racks (quarter, half, and full).

Most solid co-location providers will have service level agreements where as companies like Rackshack.net offer none or have an offer they don’t often live up to over time.

There are companies that already co-locate one or more racks, and they can often give you some breaks compared to the actual data center; they will often rent you one U of space. However, don’t expect them to compete with Rackshack.net on pricing for the space and bandwidth.

Thank you.

[mdagdelen]

Originally posted by Stable
I am looking for someplace to Colocate a server and I have been noticing a steady pattern of dedicated hosting allowing a lot more bandwidth transfer than server colocation. Is there any real reason for this? Other than $$

I don't understand this, as far as I can see the only difference is who owns the server! I was just checking out a site that for $119 I can colocate my server and get 100MB of transfer OR for $99 I can get one of their dedicated servers and 750MB of monthly transfer! Also this place seems to only offer Red Hat Linux and due to the fact that RH sucks, I'd much rather have FreeBSD installed(but that's for another forum).

Seems kind of strange to me since by providing my own server, it eliminates the need for them to pay for a server for me to use.

Any recommendations on a good Colo Facility would be welcome. I'd prefer they be in or around NYC, but it is not necessary, especially since the one i quoted those prices from is actually on the West Coast.

The other option that I am considering is Burst.net, though I keep seeing mixed reactions about them.


Thanks

some companies say that they offer 750GB or even more for cheaper than 100GB colo hosting, I have seen it a lot of times on this market. This is because they know, you would not make that big of traffic. And when you make that big traffic, see what will happen.