Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : Confused about colocation costs?

[grniyce]

I'm completely confused...

I purchased a dual opteron, 4gb server from Geeks and was thinking of colocation, but the prices are outlandish.

I currently have a dual Xeon 2.4ghz, 4gb ram, 100mbps with 5tb b/w (leased) and it costs me $149/mo.

To colocate my server I get 500gb b/w and it costs me $69 is the lowest I've found. Why would a person colocate instead of just leasing?

I thought it would be cheaper. Am I missing something?

[FazeWire]

Yep, that's about right, you just got a good price on your leased server.

That is the standard for colocation though, do you have a location in mind?

[grniyce]

I was thinking about Chicago

[skullbox]

Colocation is generally cheaper in volume. You can usually get say 1/2 rack of colo space for cheaper than say 10 dedicated servers.

It's a toss up. Colo is great for situations where you need to get servers into the data center and don't need an INSANE amount of bandwidth. You can get a decent rate on bandwidth for colocation. However, if you really want to eat bandwidth, there are many deals on dedicated servers out there. Generally speaking, bandwitdth tends to be cheaper per meg with dedicated servers than with colo.

I use colo because I like using specific server and network hardware. I also run application servers, and the hardware required would be much more expensive had I gone with dedicated servers.

I just spoke to someone today that wanted to colocate 1 server in Orlando, but knew nothing about server administration and wanted to use a server that was about 8 years old.

I told him for the price to colo 1 server, he'd be better off going dedicated.

[ffeingol]

As silly as it may sound I think it all boils down to overselling. As you move up the hosting 'food chain' the provider expects you to actually use closer to 100% of the resources that you are buying. Colo is the 'top' of the food chain and therefore the most expensive.

[skullbox]

I agree with ffeingol. He said what I was saying better.

[sharmaine1111]

Because some people can buy high end server at a cheaper costs but they don't have datacenter and bandwidth to hook them up and visible to the internet. So they colocate.

Try joesdatacenter.com. Their colocation is cheaper

[KarlZimmer]

A single server with standard bandwidth usage, etc. is not what colocation is for. Colocation is for special cases, where you have multiple servers, possible database servers that don't use much/any bandwidth, any systems where you need specialty hardware, etc. It is easier for a data center to manage homogeneous equipment, such as in a dedicated server environment. With a colocated system it is requiring custom network setup, advanced space/power planning, etc. In addition, when support is requested, the hardware is basically unknown, resulting in additional delays and costs.

[TailoredVPS]

Originally Posted by sharmaine1111

Because some people can buy high end server at a cheaper costs but they don't have datacenter and bandwidth to hook them up and visible to the internet. So they colocate.

Try joesdatacenter.com. Their colocation is cheaper

Yes joesdatacenter has the cheapest colocation I have seen.

[programguy]

Originally Posted by grniyce

I'm completely confused...

I purchased a dual opteron, 4gb server from Geeks and was thinking of colocation, but the prices are outlandish.

I currently have a dual Xeon 2.4ghz, 4gb ram, 100mbps with 5tb b/w (leased) and it costs me $149/mo.

To colocate my server I get 500gb b/w and it costs me $69 is the lowest I've found. Why would a person colocate instead of just leasing?

I thought it would be cheaper. Am I missing something?

I would love to see just what happens when you push that 5 TB of bandwidth. With colo, your datacenter will usually give you a real line with real limits, not some shared bs bw.

[dazmanultra]

Unless you can be on-site at the datacenter yourself very quickly in the event of a hardware failure, you'll probably not want to go for co-location.

[searchingsolutions]

There are many factors that go into creating a high quality data center. $69 for colo on a single server sounds like a great deal, depending on other associated costs and the amount of bandwidth you get. Redundant UPS systems, diesel generators, manned security, and the cost of power is what you are paying for in colo.....Is the facility you are looking at going to meet your demands for your sever?

[ObjectZone]

grniyce:

Some others have kind-of hit on this, but they didn't really say it outright. The fact is, you purchased a very low-end machine - relative to the what's currently available from the major manufacturers. Geeks.com is a great place to get a bargain price on yesterday's gear.

My server isn't top of the line by any means, but definitely a lot better than a Geeks.com special. An HP DL380 G5, 16GB RAM, 4x147GB 10k SAS drives, 1x320GB SATA drive and a P400 RAID controller with battery-backed write cache. To lease a comparable "black-box" with this configuration from a datacenter would cost me in excess of $800 per month at minimum due to high-end components to achieve the performance my SQL Databases require. Through frugal buying and bargaining the total cash outlayed was around $3,000. Accounting for my bandwidth, 2Us of rack space and 3 amps of power, I was able to get a great deal on my co-location and it costs a fraction of the price of the leased machine - every month. At $800 per month, I've completely paid for the hardware in 4 months. After that, I save big bucks every month. Money better used for expanding my business.

To me, co-location is a far better solution. If I only needed your average SATA hard disks attached to a NIC and a CPU then dedicated might have been something worth sticking around for. It doesn't hurt me that I've got more than 12 years of experience with Compaq and HP hardware -- enough to know exactly how they work and trust their reliability to trust them enough with my customer's data.

--Chris

[sharmaine1111]

Actually FDC offers colo cheaper than joesdc: http://www.fdcservers.net/SS/inner2.htm

collo with 1000gb bandwidth is only $39/mo

[cmsoko]

Not to repeat but just 2nd the comments of objectzone...colocation is for your own purchased equipment. Over the long run you will absolutely save money. but when you start leasing might be a better option. low upfront costs with no worries about upgrades. just stop renting the "old" server and rent a newer one.

Remember that colocation has enterprise or better resources. lines that not only outperform comcast at home but are lower latency, better uptime and redundant. Battery backups/multiple power grids are very useful and think about having comparatively cheap usually very smart techs able to help you.

Think about calling a consulting company, having them come to your server and do your work. it'll be 200-400 min. remote hands is a lot quicker and more efficient.

A tip if you colocate is go redundant. multiple procs (even older/lower spec), multiple drives in raid of some kind and multiple power supplies. If you have a failure your system stays running while you procure replacement parts.