Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Who should I get a dedicated server from ??

[chilliboy2]

Hi,

We are purchasing a new dedicated server and I'm looking at various options. Our website is very important to us as our business of 10 people entirely revolves around it (hence wanting to get away from a semi-dedicated !).

No one in our office really knows much about managing a server so we really need either very good support or we need to get someone external to manage the server for us.

A good and reliable connection is a must for us as downtime really costs us money. We are also uk based so good connection to the UK is required.

Can anyone suggest what our best options are ?

I was considering using rackshack because they are very cheap and then spending what we save on someone to manage the server remotely. Do you think this is a good option ?

Are there any other companies I should look at ?

Thanks for the help

[dsappana]

You might want to try looking at ServerMatrix (http://www.servermatrix.com/), which is run by ThePlanet.

If I'm not mistaken, they also offer semi-managed to fully-managed servers.

However, I don't know about their ping to UK. But from what I read around WHT, their network is top-notch.

[robertlee]

If your website is important, then you should be willing to pay a little more for like RAID1 at least for data protection and/or even backup service or both etc. As well as a dedicated server hosting with rather good network at least having say 99.999% uptime and multiple tier-1 connectivity.

You can try to look into some of these which I found to be the better of the many available. I do not use them, but they are the top list of provider when I was researching for a new server in the past few months:-

Higher/Mid Range quality Managed Server
- Rackspace.com (super expensive)
- Datapipe.com (optional managed services)
- Intermedia.net (I used their shared hosting before and still use it for a friend, so far very reliable)

Afforable Managed Server
- Servermatrix.com (seems very attractive, reliable and affordable)
- ServInt.com (VPS shared but seems interested as fully managed using dual Xeon 2.4 with 8 GB and huge RAID 5 type configuration. )

Rackshack.net has good network connectivity, but only problem I guess it is unmanaged. I feel it is probably better you get support from them, as sometimes are better done locally rather than remotely.

Among the list, I would also say Servermatrix.com would seem like a good choice, just probably you might want to invest in RAID1 type of server for extra data protection.

Alternatively, you can also look into datapipe.com as they also have a Europe site, but a little expensive but seems like a quality provider. Their mid range servers are comparable to others, but lower end ones kinda expensive.

So far these are the some of the better ones with managed services which you can consider. I am not sure about pings to UK, so you have to do your own testing and also weight what gives you most value service for what you pay for.

[wheimeng]

I believe you can go with superbservers.net, they are real stable. Or probably go with skynetweb.com, they have grown real big now.

[chilliboy2]

Hi,

Many thanks for your feedback. What are your thoughts on Ventures Online ? I've heard they are ok.

Thanks

[Zeph]

Hi chilliboy2,

I would think an East coast or UK provider would probably offer the best connections for the UK. With that in mind, I'd suggest Superb.net. They're located on the East coast and have direct connections to a bunch of major UK ISPs such as British Telecom, Demon Internet, EasyNet, etc. They offer both managed (superb.net) and unmanaged (superbservers.net) services.

Hope this helps...

[Mark_TVI]

chilliboy2, for your situation I would highly recommend ServInt. Their Network will make you happy first, it has great speeds and reliablity. Then their Support will keep you happy, 24/7 Techs available via 800 number or email. I have never called and went past the third ring before speaking to a tech. It's my opinion they are about the best fully managed solution available.

Try doing a search for them on this forum and judge their network and support for yourself....

[chilliboy2]

Hi,

Thanks for all the feedback with regard to the managed servers.

My only concern is the cost of a managed server when compared to a sever that I could get at Rackshack. There will only be a couple of sites on the server so I would hope that this would minimise what could/would go wrong with it and I could end up spending a hell of a lot of money on a managed service that I never (or rarely) use.

We are currently getting bids in for the development of our website, which will involve the ongoing employment of at least one tech fulltime (probably based in the far east).

My thoughts are that it would work out far cheaper to employ them at around $10/hour to do any server maintenance, add software etc (especially as they are developing the website and will know how to optimise the server for it), rather than spend what will probably amount to around $400/month for a managed server.

Can anyone see any problems with this - I presume everything other than hardware issues (which I presume rackshack would take care of promptly) can be managed remotely ?

Thanks for the advise.

[binaris]

Rackshack is completely unmanaged, and you must have justification for any hardware replacements. If you're not having someone in-house manage the server, then I would recommend you stay away from RS... one wrong move and your server will be crippled. Even if it's a simple problem, your only option is to format the hard drve. Don't get me wrong, I like Rackshack, it's just not for the faint of heart.

I would recommend a provider based in New England (e.g., someone in the NAC datacenter).

The Planet is great if you don't care about location (they're in Dallas, TX), and if you order from their ServerMatrix subsidiary, you'll get great prices. Basic management comes with ServerMatrix servers - just remember to select the BRONZE package from the drop-down -- it's free.

[Mark_TVI]

chilliboy2, while using a 3rd party management team for your server is an option, it also adds another step into the process of fixing a server issue. You contact them, they contact the datacenter the problem gets fixed as opposed to you contacting the datacenter directly and getting the issue resolved.

One thing I didn't notice is your transfer requirements. You could consider a VPS situation. ServInt's VPS start at $49.00 but for $89 you can get 200 gigs of transfer on a machine like this. Once again that is a totally managed solution, you have no headaches.

Just another option to consider...

[ericabiz]

Originally posted by chilliboy2
We are currently getting bids in for the development of our website, which will involve the ongoing employment of at least one tech fulltime (probably based in the far east).

My thoughts are that it would work out far cheaper to employ them at around $10/hour to do any server maintenance, add software etc...

That is sad. Hiring someone for $10/hour for web development, and then expecting that person to also be a competent system administrator?

I realize you're probably talking about outsourcing to India, however (even putting aside my personal dissatisfaction with outsourcing to the lowest bidder), do you seriously expect to get a jack-of-all-trades who would be able to remotely administer your server 24 hours a day for $10/hour? That's what you pay for with a managed server -- someone available 24 hours a day to look after it and proactively monitor it, install software patches, etc.

If your entire business depends on your website, as you said, I just can't believe you'd contract the whole thing out to the lowest bidder... especially considering that if something goes wrong, your $10/hour website developer may not be a competent enough system administrator to deal with the issue, and your server could be down for several hours... and then Rackshack would give you the "format it or go home" ultimatum and you'd have sunk your entire business.

Something about your post just really hit a nerve with me. If your whole business, your entire livelihood, and the livelihood of 9 other people depend on this website and server, you'd better be d*mn sure that you're going with a quality provider. I find your attitude discouraging and disappointing, to say the least.

[Dan L]

I know it's based out of Atlanta, GA in the US, but i-netsolutions.net has fully-managed dedicated servers at $150/month with no setup. I also know the support staff there and even occasionally answer tickets, so that might be something to look at..

[chilliboy2]

That is sad. Hiring someone for $10/hour for web development, and then expecting that person to also be a competent system administrator?

I realize you're probably talking about outsourcing to India, however (even putting aside my personal dissatisfaction with outsourcing to the lowest bidder), do you seriously expect to get a jack-of-all-trades who would be able to remotely administer your server 24 hours a day for $10/hour? That's what you pay for with a managed server -- someone available 24 hours a day to look after it and proactively monitor it, install software patches, etc.

If your entire business depends on your website, as you said, I just can't believe you'd contract the whole thing out to the lowest bidder... especially considering that if something goes wrong, your $10/hour website developer may not be a competent enough system administrator to deal with the issue, and your server could be down for several hours... and then Rackshack would give you the "format it or go home" ultimatum and you'd have sunk your entire business.

Something about your post just really hit a nerve with me. If your whole business, your entire livelihood, and the livelihood of 9 other people depend on this website and server, you'd better be d*mn sure that you're going with a quality provider. I find your attitude discouraging and disappointing, to say the least.

Firstly not a person I am talking about a company.

Secondly $10/hr is certainly not the 'lowest bid', - that is pretty much the standard rate for a decent coder at a large Indian development house - I did some research on this and got all the rates Ogilvy UK pay for outsourcing to India. If you wanted to go for an independant guy then you would be looking at far less than this ! I've actually been quoted around $6 hour from some large companies in India for our current project which is around 3,000 hours. So $10hr is certainly not the bottom of the barrel.

Thirdly it would obviously not be a web developer that administors the site. I'm talking about a proper system administrator. I've been with a number of hosts in the past and have found that most one the guys that you speak to when you have a problem don't know their a** from their elbow (maybe I've just been unlucky). Hence I thought it me be a better option to get someone from outside who really knows their stuff and may work out cheaper.

I'm not trying to cheapskate, but I thought that provided the hardware and network were reliable, everything else could be taken care of remotely. I was really looking for an answer as to if this was true or not (I admit I am no expert), and if the answer was not then why not ?

Other answers have been helpful - yours has not.

Thanks to all the others who posted helpful replies.

[CLucich]

I know this is off topic, but I haven't seen this happen in a while (or maybe it has and I've just missed seeing it)..but I noticed that ****************** are being edited out..and not others. Why?

[peersignal]

I'd suggest you take a look at www.clook.net . They are offering fully managed dedicated servers, and since Clook is also UK based, it may work to your advantage. I can vouch for Clook, excellent service and support. Give them a look, I think they can handle what you are looking for.

Regards,
Mark