Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : UK Dedicated Server Advice

[ThinIce]

Hi All

Firstly apologies if this is slightly the wrong forum for this - but I think some of you may well have answers / experiences that may be useful.

I'm looking for a UK host for a dedicated server of the following specification

- 2.4 - 3.0ghz processor
- 1 Gig or Ram
- 80GB plus storage (Raid1)
- 10MBps or unlimited for application

The application in question will be game server software / Voice Comms. The bandwidth requirements for this are obviously high - and depend very much on popularity of the services hosted. I've seen some companies such as TSN offer a concept of 'unlimited gaming bandwidth' - presumeably capitalising on the fact that whilst some games servers are full a high percentage of the time, most are only in use for around four to six hours a day or less. Excellent peering / routes / good ping times in the UK and for the majority of Europe are very important.

This is mainly to be a development server for the next six to eight months.
After the development period we would be expecting to regularly rent more boxes of equal or greater power on a regular basis.

I've seen many offers of colocation / dedicated hosting at various prices and levels of support from a multitude of companies - but would be grateful for the voice of experience in finding an outfit that is both capable and reliable.

Thanks in advance

Thin

[NickTooms]

Did you try HOST QUOTE?
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/request.php

[cjhhiv]

Try 1and1.com. They have a London datacenter, I believe.

[Bodeba]

no do not try 1and1.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...hreadid=328281

I can name 20 other dedicated hosting companies that have UK datacenters and 1and1 wouldnt even be in that list because the list would only be of compitent companies.

I believe it is wrong to "advise" or "reccomend" this sort of thing to people. It is a very expensive investment and should be done after a few hours of research.

Start off on google uk, and find out as much as you can about some companies.

test their support, look for 0845 or 0800 support numbers, test them.

that way you can be sure you are making the right move, instead of relying on a community largley made up of people who own and run hosting companies themselves.

good luck.

[nitrohosting]

Hi Thin,

Hosts who offer unlimited gaming bandwidth options do so because the majority of machines on which people run games like counterstrike can only cope with a certain number of games/players and hence have a rough upper bound on the amount of traffic they will create. The reason gaming bandwidth is often cheaper than normal bandwidth isn't just because the servers are only busy part of the day, but because game traffic is more likely to be destined for the UK and other destinations which are reachable by peering agreements or partial transit providers. Peering/Partial transit traffic (usually) costs less than full global transit and so these reduced prices often get passed on to customers. Many providers steer away from the 'unlimited' offers simply because it's a relatively deceiving business model for customers, there will always come a point where you could find the host capping your port or adding extra charges because of the volume of traffic. Most hosts will choose the more sustainable business model of 95th percentile billing with an agreed cost per mbit.

With regard to providers, there will always be a mix of the cheap and ugly right through to the overly expensive and so which one would be best depends very much on your requirements. Hosts using transit from the likes of Cogent or KPN are unlikely to have fantastic pings throughout Europe as these are generally considered budget options whereas at the other end of the scale the likes of Level(3) or Tiscali are considered practically unbeatable. I'm more than willing to offer a fairly unbiased opinion on potential hosts if you'd like. Feel free to email kmc@nitrohosting.net if you have questions about any hosts in particular or would like my opinions on who the reputable ones in the UK are

I'd echo tickbomb's comments about having a hunt and trying to find a host who you think suits your needs though. These messageboards do contain plenty of hosts however they also contain plenty of valuable information on previous customer experiences etc. Just start digging

Hope this has helped some!

Kind regards,
Kris McConkey

[HorizonNetworks]

I run several game servers from the UK and have found www.poundhost.com to be quite reasonable, as reasonable as UK servers get anyway, hope this helps.

[coreisp]

Most games players wanted the most bandwidth for their money, what this normally means is that some games providers us cheaper backbone providers.

Where as most hosting companies have a mix of quality and quantity, and also good peering to as many networks as possible.

The price difference between 10Mb of KPN / Cogent and Level 3 for instance can be £500 or more per month.

Cheers Paul

[ThinIce]

Guys - thanks for all the replies.

Part of the reason for the post was because i've been investigating this on and off for a while now, and the crunch time has actually come when I need a server for development work. Theres a sea of hosts, and a large sea of information on them out there.

I emailed / contacted quite a few companies and have had replies that range from the competant to the boneheaded as well as some nice intelligent discussions that are continuing.

1and1 disqualified themselves early on by saying i'd have to be hosted in Germany and like it

I've taken a look at UK2 but aren't entirely convinced by what I see there - the price and hardware spec is good, the rest of it doesn't look so good - some of the agreement didn't look quite right.

TickBomb makes a good point and i'll be testing the support as much as is possible without actually buying a product!

Nitrohosting - thanks for your useful reply - i may well take you up on the offer!

Coreisp - I definately take your point there. I've been renting in this area for about six years - and have seen a lot of providers. Its interesting to get to the issues underneath the service provided.

Ah well - "Continue the research" Mr Burns

[nitrohosting]

Hi ThinIce,

No problem

I could put you in touch with a few people who have hosted with UK2 in the past and who would advise anyone to stay well clear of them ;-) I personally don't have any experience of them, but very much doubt that I would want to!

Paul, in my experience a large proportion of gamers are more interested in the latency of connections to their servers from within the UK and througout Europe than getting the absolute lowest price, and are willing to spend that little bit extra to avoid UK traffic being routed via Amsterdam for instance, as I've seen both Cogent and KPN do. For example:

2 ldn-s2-rou-1002.UK.eurorings.net (134.222.109.181)
3 ldn-s2-rou-1001.UK.eurorings.net (134.222.231.61)
4 obl-rou-1003.NL.eurorings.net (134.222.230.145)
5 ledn-rou-1001.NL.eurorings.net (134.222.229.237)
6 asd-s4-rou-1001.NL.eurorings.net (134.222.96.86)
7 openpeering.sara1.nl-ix.net (194.153.154.17)
8 lipex1.enta.net (193.109.219.56)

The best path isn't always the cheapest

Regards,
Kris

[ThinIce]

Thanks

Yeah thats what I gathered from the UK2 website. Some of those terms of service struck me as being decidedly dodgy.

Can also confirm that I've seen the "connection takes sightseeing trip to Amsterdam / Paris" issue several times in the past with various hosts - definately worth avoiding as its my experience it can cause regular ping spikes - even if the connection can the rest of the time be classed as perfectly playable.

[coreisp]

Yes I know what you mean Kris but surely a good hosting provider will have excellent peering aggreements with the bigger dialup / ADSL providers.

I know over the last 12 months we at Core ISP has worked long and hard to get peering with companies, this why we now peer with over 200 other ISP's

Thanks Paul

[neilrbowen]

With regard to providers, there will always be a mix of the cheap and ugly right through to the overly expensive and so which one would be best depends very much on your requirements. Hosts using transit from the likes of Cogent or KPN are unlikely to have fantastic pings throughout Europe as these are generally considered budget options whereas at the other end of the scale the likes of Level(3) or Tiscali are considered practically unbeatable. I'm more than willing to offer a fairly unbiased opinion on potential hosts if you'd like. Feel free to email kmc@nitrohosting.net if you have questions about any hosts in particular or would like my opinions on who the reputable ones in the UK are

KPN do have some bad routes, but in general the trransti around europe is of the same latency as level(3) we use both.

The point is of course in the peering. We peer in many EU cities now and this is very beneicial. KPN for example send a lot of their traffic to france via amsterdam, not a good route!

There are two main reasons for unmetered gaming transit.

1: we know how much on average each server can acctually use due to the CPU usage of gameservers

2: Gamers play on the server that pings best to them, with barely any exception. This means that people using the gaming servers will be close to the server, and peering is cheap for this.

[nitrohosting]

Hey Neil,

Hows things?

KPN do have some bad routes, but in general the trransti around europe is of the same latency as level(3) we use both

You should add the graph for L(3) to your bandwidth page then Do you actually have it enabled, or is it just for backup? The trace I pasted was actually from your network

Kind regards,
Kris

[neilrbowen]

Not sure what your tracing too there, but if it goes over enta then we peer directly as below.

traceroute to www.enta.net (81.31.101.50), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 belle-01.core.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.254) 0.363 ms 0.306 ms 0.315 ms
2 shirl-02.bord.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.106) 0.546 ms 0.458 ms 0.422 ms
3 xchangepoint.enta.net (217.79.160.109) 0.831 ms 0.808 ms 0.622 ms

Yes Level(3) is very much in use...
traceroute to www.clara.net (80.168.69.13), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 belle-01.core.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.254) 0.367 ms 0.325 ms 0.330 ms
2 lvl3gw.thn.packetexchange.net (212.187.197.193) 0.632 ms 0.543 ms 0.510 ms
3 so-1-2-0.gar1.London1.Level3.net (212.113.0.114) 0.984 ms 1.033 ms 0.958 ms
4 ge-1-2.core2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.166) 1.193 ms 1.244 ms ge-1-1.core2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.134) 1.198 ms

But 64% of our traffic now takes our direct peers.

The rest takes KPN , Telecomplete and Level(3)

Ill correct that route if you can tell me where you are tracing too.

[neilrbowen]

A few interesting traceroutes (first two i tried) to compare level(3) to ourselves for interest...

LEVEL(3)(LONDON) -> SHAW.CA
1 ae-0-56.bbr2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.178) 0 msec
2 as-0-0.bbr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.68.128.106) 64 msec 64 msec 292 msec
3 so-0-1-0.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net (64.159.1.34) 88 msec 88 msec 84 msec
4 so-7-0-0.gar2.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.96.42) 128 msec 88 msec 88 msec
5 4.79.64.14 84 msec 88 msec 124 msec
6 rc2ch-pos2-0.il.shawcable.net (66.163.65.2) 312 msec 84 msec 88 msec
7 rc2nr-pos14-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.76.173) 104 msec 104 msec 136 msec
8 rc1so-pos13-0.cg.shawcable.net (66.163.76.85) 140 msec 136 msec 136 msec
9 rd1so-pos10-0.cg.shawcable.net (66.163.71.130) 136 msec 136 msec 136 msec
[ END RESULT 136 ms ]

TSN GLOBAL(LONDON) -> SHAW.CA
traceroute to www.shaw.ca (204.209.208.8), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 belle-01.core.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.254) 0.339 ms 0.301 ms 0.324 ms
2 steph-01.core.2488M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.114) 0.575 ms 0.471 ms 0.451 ms
3 213.228.236.22 (213.228.236.22) 67.033 ms 66.820 ms 72.521 ms
4 rc2hu-pos6-0.ny.shawcable.net (66.163.74.1) 67.127 ms 67.062 ms 66.969 ms
5 rc1hu-pos5-2.ny.shawcable.net (66.163.74.5) 67.297 ms 67.178 ms 67.295 ms
6 rc1sh-pos14-2.mt.shawcable.net (66.163.76.89) 199.973 ms 245.259 ms 233.806 ms
7 rc1nr-pos14-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.76.74) 101.618 ms 101.772 ms 101.591 ms
8 rc2nr-pos15-0.wp.shawcable.net (66.163.73.130) 101.759 ms 101.763 ms 101.691 ms
9 rc1so-pos13-0.cg.shawcable.net (66.163.76.85) 118.401 ms 118.273 ms 118.371 ms
10 rd1so-pos10-0.cg.shawcable.net (66.163.71.130) 118.164 ms 118.207 ms 118.200 ms
[ END RESULT 118 ms ]

LEVEL(3)(MANCHESTER) -> SWISSCOM.COM
1 so-4-1-0.mp2.Manchesteruk1.Level3.net (4.68.113.109) 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 so-4-1-0.mpls2.Zurich1.Level3.net (212.187.128.213) 28 msec 32 msec 28 msec
3 ge-5-0.hsa2.Zurich1.Level3.net (213.242.66.20) 28 msec 28 msec 32 msec
4 213.242.67.130 92 msec 96 msec 92 msec
5 i64bei-000-pos5-1-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.174) [AS3303 {RIPE-ASNBLOCK4}] 96 msec 96 msec 96 msec
6 138.187.134.131 [AS3303 {RIPE-ASNBLOCK4}] 1124 msec 616 msec 276 msec
7 cit-00-fwd-ser1-0.ce.ip-plus.net (164.128.50.6) [AS3303 {RIPE-ASNBLOCK4}] 96 msec 96 msec 100 msec
[ END RESULT 96-100 ms ]

TSNGLOBAL(MANCHESTER) -> SWISSCOM.COM
traceroute to www.swisscom.com (138.190.1.60), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 Eeeeesha.core.0100M.man.tsnglobal.net (213.160.115.1) 0.329 ms 0.201 ms 0.224 ms
1 50FD739D.core.0100M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.158) 10.854 ms 10.883 ms 13.038 ms
2 shirl-02.bord.2000M.lon.tsnglobal.net (80.253.115.106) 8.995 ms 9.531 ms 9.870 ms
3 ip-plus.FreeIX.net (213.228.3.184) 34.139 ms 34.586 ms 33.107 ms
4 i79zhb-005-pos9-2.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.9) 34.699 ms 33.292 ms 33.924 ms
5 i64bei-000-pos5-1-0.bb.ip-plus.net (138.187.129.174) 35.661 ms 36.743 ms 35.851 ms
6 138.187.134.131 (138.187.134.131) 40.618 ms 37.849 ms 36.706 ms
7 cit-00-fwd-ser1-0.ce.ip-plus.net (164.128.50.6) 36.798 ms 36.483 ms 37.061 ms
[ END RESULT 36-37 ms ]


And lastly, Over KPN Eurorings.

Not the most expensive provider, but check out the following traceroutes fro the tiscali route server in Frankfurt to 3 different London ISP's. Note the one over KPN wins.

Tracing the route to www.49pence.com (213.228.193.150)
1 ge-2-0-4-3.fra10.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.64.93) [AS 3257] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
2 so-0-0-1.fra40.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.82.185) [AS 3257] 12 msec 0 msec 0 msec
3 so-4-1.core2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.127.1) [AS 3356] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
4 ae-0-51.mp1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (195.122.136.1) [AS 3356] 76 msec 0 msec 0msec
5 so-0-0-0.bbr2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.25) [AS 3356] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
6 ge-3-0-0-0.gar2.London1.Level3.net (4.68.128.126) [AS 3356] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
7 so-6-0.metro1-londencyh00.London1.Level3.net (212.113.3.30) [AS 3356] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
8 49pence.demarc.cogentco.com (130.117.16.46) [AS 174] 88 msec 84 msec 88 msec
9 www.49pence.com (213.228.193.150) [AS 29131] 88 msec 88 msec 88 msec

Tracing the route to tsn.uk.com (83.142.53.129)
1 ge-2-0-4-3.fra10.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.64.93) [AS 3257] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 so-2-0-0.fra20.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.82.157) [AS 3257] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
3 ffm-s2-rou-1071.DE.eurorings.net (80.81.192.22) [AS 6695] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
4 ffm-s1-rou-1001.DE.eurorings.net (134.222.227.133) [AS 286] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
5 ffm-s1-rou-1002.DE.eurorings.net (134.222.230.106) [AS 286] 0 msec 0 msec 4 msec
6 ldn-s2-rou-1001.UK.eurorings.net (134.222.230.122) [AS 286] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
7 ldn-s2-rou-1002.UK.eurorings.net (134.222.231.62) [AS 286] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
8 princess.c1000M.r7-807.lon.tsnglobal.net (134.222.109.182) [AS 286] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec
9 tsn.uk.com (83.142.53.129) [AS 28956] 16 msec 16 msec 16 msec

Tracing the route to carbon.redbus.nitrohosting.net (213.230.200.30)
1 ge-2-0-4-3.fra10.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.64.93) [AS 3257] 0 msec 4 msec 0 msec
2 so-3-0-0.lon12.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.81.73) [AS 3257] 12 msec 16 msec 16 msec
3 catalyst2-gw.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.77.26) [AS 3257] 16 msec 20 msec 16 msec
4 carbon.redbus.nitrohosting.net (213.230.200.30) [AS 29636] 20 msec 20 msec 16 msec