Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : Colocation in Ashburn,VA

[lampy]

I need around 300gb of transfer. The server is a 4u box.
what do yall recomend?
Thanks

[rusko]

i think defenderhosting is in equinix-ash. give tom a shout, he will take care of you.

paul

[qm8309]

defenderhosting has the best reputation on this board for their dedicated and colo service@ ashburn va. their network is known 2b blazing fast. however u do realize space in ashburn is expensive. here is the quote i got from them last time i inquired.

colo:

$40 per U per month, and $85 per 330GB of transfer per
month. This includes 1 power drop, and 1 100Mbs switched ethernet connection to your
server.

see ur 4u server will cost u $160 for rack space while ur 300gb transfer only costs $85.

so mayb u should consider using 1u boxes if u want to save some money.

[lampy]

i'm thinking of super b servers.com

[Jake Weg]

its superb servers

[neonlexx]

superb has good and bad remarks, don't use them b/c they have cogent b/w. Icky....

I have been a Defender Hosting customer for almost 9 months or so now and they have given me 100% uptime, they rock!... Search for a review of them. I wouldn't dream of co-locating with anyone else.

[Jake Weg]

what providers does defender use ?

[neonlexx]

Depends, they have a few different providers...You can choose what you want for the most part, just ask them.

Aleron
BtN
nLayer
Level3
Internap

I am on strictly Aleron b/w and I love it, I don't much care for any of the other providers except level3 and there isn't a level3 only option currently.

[hjass]

Originally posted by neonlexx
superb has good and bad remarks, don't use them b/c they have cogent b/w. Icky....

What's the problem with using Cogent for the routes where it is the best route (e.g. networks that are only connected to Cogent, so no matter where have to go through it) and provides the lowest latency and highest throughput speed? It is used for less than 10% or routes, only where it is better performing than any other of the routes.

Most routes go directly to the end destination network, without using any transit, through direct peering (and soon that will be even more so with Palo Alto, CA presence for hopone.net and thus it becoming a national network coming by Nov 15th). Such top performance and our 100% uptime, no packet loss, low latency SLA (which we do live up to) are hard to beat, IMO. (But that's just my personal opinion. :-)

[Noam]

i totaly agree with what hjass has to say, people running away when they hear cogent is just stupid.
when cogent is in a bgp mix with other decent providors it can only be good, because people do use cogent, and you would prefer your route to them going thru the shortest possible route so you can get the best speed.
when cogent is used as a sole providor or a major providor in a mix.. thats something else.

[hjass]

IMO, the reason why Cogent gets bad reputation among some is simply because a lot of Cogent-only providers have oversold it greatly, thus maxing out their circuits and decreasing the speed and increasing the latency.

Cogent has been by far the most oversold bandwidth out there lately (though before other networks, e.g. iconnet.net that burstnet and others had oversold greatly back in the late 1990s, also got bad rep for much the same reason), and the reason why the network as a whole gets bad rap is simply because a bunch of irresponsible, rock-bottom low-end providers had oversold their Cogent lines. The problem with Cogent lies with those who oversell it and try to push, say, 500 Mbps over a 300 Mbps rate-limited circuit (just as an example). When you try to do that, then of course it'll be as slow as a snail. They blame it on Cogent... but as anyone with any basic knowledge of networking will know and will be able to test, in most cases the problem is the provider that is maxing out their Cogent circuit, and not Cogent itself.

That is not say that Cogent is perfect or a great network. By no means is it so, and some problems that are attributed to Cogent are doubtlessly indeed the network itself. But, it's consistently getting better and is a fairly decent (though still not good yet) network. For some 2/3s (66%) of routes it performs as well as, if not better, than most other major networks - i.e. it's 2/3s on par with other networks (that's just by gross estimates, not scientific numbers). It's a shame how irresponsible providers overselling Cogent has gotten it bad reputation, and how some just make a judgement without looking at or even considering the facts.

[neonlexx]

Cogent's routing in my experience has been anything but acceptable, their backbone and connections are fine. The peering just has been very very poor in my experience.

Note to plug defender hosting's services again, they have a nice personal touch..something larger businesses lack.

[IRCCo Jeff]

This problem that many people have with Cogent is not by any means global. Our Cogent uplinks in San Diego out perform many of our "quality" uplinks in other cities.

[snickn]

Like others have said, a lot of Cogent's bad rap comes from the fact that the folks purchasing it for $40/mbit or whatever are also the same folks who will oversubscribe it, than blame it on cogent.

Cogent isn't nearly as many here claim them to be. They have their isssues, but it all depends on where at, now they have EU transit too...

[Mfjp]

Alot of Cogent's problem lie with their peering. When they went into the market at 30/meg, it screw up their peering agreement by pusing alot of traffic one way. With most peering agreement, there is a govern amount of traffic ratio that each provider have to archieve.