Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : BandWidth Providers Whose the best also advice needed

[ecstatic]

Hi All,

I am thinking about entering the hosting industry and was wondering who is the best provider to get for bandwidth purposes E.G: Level3- Interoute, Lambdanet, KPN. What has been everyones experiences and why do they recommend one over the other ie: latency / network outages etc..

For starting off as a host id like to start off small as it appears it takes a good year to be able to pay a wage etc judging by these boards. Have 10k to invest so was thinking of maybe 2 servers to start out with 1 for signups and another for the control panel with Mail etc. Fairly specy machine and another system for hosting websites. Probably get a colo somewhere. Does anyone have in and around prices for a colo location that is multihomed etc...

Does anyone have any recommendations starting off. Previously i worked in a hosting company and late nights appeal to me IE: young single and looking to start a business !

[snickn]

Depends on where you physically want to colocate the server, I recommend Mzima bandwidth in Los Angeles, I don't think you can do better than this....Other than that, it just depends, InterNAP is great bandwidth of course...

[Papa Smurff]

If you are looking to start a hosting business it might be a good idea to find a colo/provider close to you. You will need to be very hands on in the beginning and may not want to rely on remote facility technicians if you have a problem.
When starting out, providing a stable, consistant service is very important. Network speed is important too but not as important as stability and consistancy.
Just my two bits.

[snickn]

Papa Smurff is right, when you start off..and for that matter, forever, I think it's important that you can touch your servers anytime day or night, preferably within a 15-30 minute distance from you as well.

I can only think of one really successful host who doesn't have any sort of physical access to their server (well maybe a few)

[ecstatic]

hmmmmm interesting will look into this though as it would seem that been close is of paramount importance...
I would intend to use similiar hardware and have a same spare set of a machine so it is fault tolerant in ways..

Does everyone use multihomed connectivity or is single provider connectivity ok??

Reason ask is that there are only 1-2 multihomed connectivity networks in my area (scotland) and they are very expensive whereas there is a large difference between multihomed prices and non multihomed prices...

[ReliableServers]

You might be better off getting some servers from a respected dedicated provider to start out....Less money up front, panels provided for cheap, someone to complain to when there are hardware/network problems. If after a year things are cozy you might want to review your plan and maybe move to colo if the costs/benifits are there.

[Papa Smurff]

Originally posted by ecstatic
hmmmmm interesting will look into this though as it would seem that been close is of paramount importance...
I would intend to use similiar hardware and have a same spare set of a machine so it is fault tolerant in ways..

Does everyone use multihomed connectivity or is single provider connectivity ok??

Reason ask is that there are only 1-2 multihomed connectivity networks in my area (scotland) and they are very expensive whereas there is a large difference between multihomed prices and non multihomed prices...

Multihomed connectivity is more reliable *IF* the provider has it configured correctly. Remember, just because someone says they are multihomed does not mean you are safe. Also, you still need to ask them where the single point of failure is. There is usually a single point of network failure unless you have two mirrored machines on two seperate networks in two seperate data centers.
That being said it could very well be that you gain little benefit being with a multihomed provider if they are not setup properly. If that is the case or you have a unfavorable single point of failure within the network of the multihomed provider you might be better off going with a non multihomed provider.

[Noam]

from the bandwidth providors you listed it looks like your in europe.
My advice is that in europe the best thing for colocation'ers is to go with a carrier neutral facility because there are many ISPs with weird connections, you never know what might be wrong and where and who's to blaim.
I remember before ~1998 most ISPs in israel only had connectivity to US and not Europe.

[ThomasC]

Noam he says he is from Scotland.

is that there are only 1-2 multihomed connectivity networks in my area (scotland)

Regards,
Thomas Currie

[Soms]

PSI net and Global Crossing both have deals offering bandwidth and PSI net even does colo in scotland/europe.

[ecstatic]

Forgive my ignorance Noam but "colocation'ers is to go with a carrier neutral facility " can you explain exactly what you mean by carrier neutral ? Are sprint any good ?

I see the possible issues associated with multihomed thanks for the advice.. I believe that one is better off investing in the hardware starting out even though it costs a lot i believe it to be a necessary up front cost as here in europe we dont get the same deals you chaps do over in the states. Servers are charged expensively and i think the business model works better with owning the machine . It is a lot of upfront cost but perhaps i need to get more finance together.

How much cash did you chaps need to start out and what type of a config did you start out with?

[Noam]

Originally posted by ecstatic
Forgive my ignorance Noam but "colocation'ers is to go with a carrier neutral facility " can you explain exactly what you mean by carrier neutral ? Are sprint any good ?

Carrier neutral facilities are datacenters that only provide you with space and power, and allow you to manage your network totaly on your own, you would need your own router and switches and an AS number and contracts with bandwidth providors.
this obviously sounds more complicated than plugging your server directly to the providors router and getting IPs assigned to you by them, but in the long run if you grow to a certain size this way will end up being cheaper, as you can negotiate deals with many bandwidth providors and get better prices.

The other more simpler solution is getting into a building that has many providors in it but at first you go directly under a specific providor and let them manage all the network for you, but if you want to in the future you can grow out of their network and get connected to the other providors in the building.
Always think ahead is all im saying

and sprint is a "high end" providor i would say, however they must not come cheap..

[ecstatic]

Yeah i see what u mean by carrier neutral now. Managing routers etc is not something id be prepared to do starting out (start small think big).. But yes in the long term it clearly is the way to go.

How much did it cost you guys in terms of $ to get started up in the hosting business?

[XLHost]

If you know what you are doing with Unix/Windows and the basic TCP/IP protocols (smtp, http, dns) it doesnt cost too much, if you need someone to show you how to do things it can get pricey. Or you could have someone write you some PHP scripts to help you manage everything.

-Drew

[XLHost]

Here is what we're thinking about doing.

Keep our 3 DS3s as backups, then take an OC3 from columbus to chicago, hit the main NAP. Put a cisco 12000 right in the middle, and do a bunch of ethernet cross connects with 5-7 different bandwidth providers.

You'd be surprised how inexpensive an oc3 to chicago is.

-Drew