Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1

    Looking for pure InterNAP high end dedicated server providers in USA.

    I want to start offering game server hosting and am looking for dedicated server providers throughout the United States that host their servers in datacenters that have pure InterNAP bandwidth, I am not looking for BGP4 networks that have InterNAP thrown in the mix, pure InterNAP-only please.

    They also should offer very powerful servers. Colocation might also be an option, but for now I would prefer dedicated.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Ersan; 09-27-2009 at 03:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,521
    FDCServers can offer pure InterNAP bandwidth in their 2 datacenters.
    LIMENEX WEB HOSTING
    Affordable High Performance Web Hosting in United States & United Kingdom
    Web Hosting | Reseller Hosting | Managed VPS | Managed Dedicated Servers | Cheap SSL Certificates

  3. #3
    Look for companies that have InterNAP and try to ask if they can set something up for you.

    I'm going to say that InterNAP transit is not the greatest thing to have, and you'll get better mileage out of a provider with a nice BGP mix and InterNAP FCP in certain conditions, so don't limit yourself to only this provider.
    478east
    High Bandwidth Servers
    Custom Hosting Solutions

  4. #4
    Yeah, I'm aware of how underwhelming their FCP is - but it unfortunately acts as a placebo for customers. I'd rather this not turn into one of those "Why do you want InterNAP, you should use something else" threads I've seen rather often. I know what I am doing.

    Thanks LaptopFreak, I remember trying to order from them in the past but they only offered 10mbit unmetered on InterNAP. I'd prefer 100mbit metered.
    Last edited by Ersan; 09-27-2009 at 03:52 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersan View Post
    Thanks LaptopFreak, I remember trying to order from them in the past but they only offered 10mbit unmetered on InterNAP. I'd prefer 100mbit metered.
    I'm sure they can work something out for you if you contact their sales team.
    LIMENEX WEB HOSTING
    Affordable High Performance Web Hosting in United States & United Kingdom
    Web Hosting | Reseller Hosting | Managed VPS | Managed Dedicated Servers | Cheap SSL Certificates

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Jax, FL
    Posts
    2,707
    FDCServers and I *think* Sentris offers it as well.
    Daniel | Server Complete, LLC
    Windows VPS // Dedicated Servers // Backup Services
    Wholly owned hardware and self operated network (AS19531) in Jacksonville, FL

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by LaptopFreak View Post
    I'm sure they can work something out for you if you contact their sales team.
    Actually, they couldn't

  8. #8
    FDCServers is the only one that comes to mind, but pure internap is not nearly as good as Internap / Level 3 etc with Internap FCP.

    Reason why the threads turn into why do you want pure Internap is because pure Internap is well sub par at best.

    PS. Why on earth you need 100mbit metered for game servers ?
    Last edited by XFactorServers; 09-27-2009 at 10:46 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brexit Island
    Posts
    2,821

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    634
    After the VitalStream acquisition, Internap has been selling dedicated servers directly:

    http://www.internap.com/data-center-...naged-servers/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    1,622
    Quote Originally Posted by XFactorServers View Post
    Reason why the threads turn into why do you want pure Internap is because pure Internap is well sub par at best.
    Yes, but as we know... he know what he's talking about :p

    Most likely, he's simply chosen to market to those customers easily swayed by marketing hype and if they are willing to pay (presumably) more for a "worse" product, then hey, he's found a good set of customers. Tho, those sorts also tend to be support nightmares with the, "OMG the pingz went up 2ms FIX IT NOW!!!" reports.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightwave View Post
    Yes, but as we know... he know what he's talking about :p

    Most likely, he's simply chosen to market to those customers easily swayed by marketing hype and if they are willing to pay (presumably) more for a "worse" product, then hey, he's found a good set of customers. Tho, those sorts also tend to be support nightmares with the, "OMG the pingz went up 2ms FIX IT NOW!!!" reports.
    For some reason I find his logic very flawed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by XFactorServers View Post
    FDCServers is the only one that comes to mind, but pure internap is not nearly as good as Internap / Level 3 etc with Internap FCP.

    Reason why the threads turn into why do you want pure Internap is because pure Internap is well sub par at best.
    I'm failing to follow the logic here. Level3 is, as far as I know, present in the bandwidth mix at every PNAP. I could potentially see that adding a carrier that's not in the Internap mix plus a FCP might lead to some very small routing improvements (though there is definitely a point of diminishing returns when adding additional carriers when using a FCP), but how could adding a carrier that's already in their mix improve it? Internap's company line is that Assimilator3 is still slightly superior to their FCP. Unless you're making the accusation that Internap's transit product is not running strictly in the FCP equivalent of performance mode.

  14. #14
    Jesus Christ...

    If you can't answer the very specific question in my original post please don't post in this thread. I talked to a few dedicated server companies that use InterNAP bandwidth and they all pretty much said the same thing "no we don't have a way to specify specific backbone providers for customers on our network". I talked to FDC and they can't give me 100mbit links.

    I'm going to talk to InterNAP directly tomorrow, hopefully I can get this thing off the ground. I didn't realize it would be that hard to find providers that resell servers in InterNAP's datacenters as they made colo so easy, I figured there would be plenty of hosts that would capitalize off of that.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    276
    No need to talk to Jesus Christ here.

    You're going to have to colocate for pure internap.

    Good luck with that, and may your money run dry. We warned you.
    Next-Generation Game Servers- www.NextGenServers.com - Play On. Fast, Reliable, Low ping, No Lag, full support servers. Providing Professional, Low Cost, but effective services to gamers like you. Providing the nextgen of gaming services.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,131
    Plus, there are other factors involved. E.g., there are other tier 2 carriers that are very well much-loved by the gaming community (one example is Mzima in the West Coast).

    Answering your original question: Pure internap, try www.newservers.com (they sell dedicated servers and only pure internap, off of their Miami datacenter) but they are not cheap as far as bandwidth goes nor as far as hardware costs.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southampton, NY
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersan View Post
    I want to start offering game server hosting and am looking for dedicated server providers throughout the United States that host their servers in datacenters that have pure InterNAP bandwidth, I am not looking for BGP4 networks that have InterNAP thrown in the mix, pure InterNAP-only please.

    They also should offer very powerful servers. Colocation might also be an option, but for now I would prefer dedicated.

    Thank you.
    Pure internap isn't easy to come buy because most providers have it in t a BGP mix, FDC is the only provider that comes to mind. keep in mind pricing will be much higher compared to a bgp mix.
    "Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity." – Dennis Ritchie

  18. #18
    It hadn't occurred to me, but it seems like the best course is to actually order dedicated servers from my competitors, since they already have established agreements with internap.

    For anyone else seeking an answer to my question, I've decided to order from NuclearFallout at https://www.nfoservers.com/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    135
    Some of NuclearFallout's locations are also BGP mixed...not pure PNAP.
    Joseph Laws
    President - Hi-Definition Gaming LLC

    (http://www.hd-gaming.com)
    Professional Gaming Services For The Professional Gamer

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ersan View Post
    It hadn't occurred to me, but it seems like the best course is to actually order dedicated servers from my competitors, since they already have established agreements with internap.

    For anyone else seeking an answer to my question, I've decided to order from NuclearFallout at https://www.nfoservers.com/
    Pure and only Internap? Most providers mix it with something else. Level3/Internap, etc.

    If you need only, and only Internap, I would call Internap directly, as they have space in several DCs, only with Internap bandwith.

    Donīt expect to pay cheap. Else, you need to colo and get a link from Internap.

    By the way, Internap also has managed servers

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    986
    The only place I've ever seen the word "pure" used when describing network providers is amongst game server providers. To the rest of the Internet it's generally "single-homed".. I think this is why the topic brings up as much contention as it has here. On a technical level, if you have access to less direct peers, you have routes the are physically longer on average, and therefore very simply, most likely higher pings. This also creates a single point of failure and almost definitely a negative long-term effect on your uptime as well.

    You'll obviously know your customer base better than anyone though, so if it has marketing benefits to trump the technical drawbacks that keep most major network operators from running their network this way (which I would say is why you're having as hard a time as you are finding this), I'd say go for it. It should still be possible to get just Internap from a provider if it's in their upstream, however it does require capable equipment, administration, and a general willingness on their part there for them to make it worth their while. I would avoid going direct with Internap at all costs at that commitment level, I've personally watched almost identical 10Mbps agreements with Internap and Mzima put several of your competitors under... save that for when you're pushing a few Gbps.
    Corey Northcutt | Northcutt
    Competitive inbound marketing with a hosting industry competency.
    Social | Content | Optimization | Outreach

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by HiDef-Laws View Post
    Some of NuclearFallout's locations are also BGP mixed...not pure PNAP.
    Yeah, based on traces etc. I assume the ones that say (InterNAP) next to them are in internap's pnap, the only BGP mix location they offer for dedicated servers seems to be Los Angeles, where they don't seem to have an internap presence for whatever reason.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    135
    With "pure" Internap you also have to consider the building in which you are getting that connectivity. The Internap carrier mix is different in every building where they have a presence. For example, in New York you'd be looking for Internap in either 111 8th or 25 Broad (the other locations don't have AT&T or Level3...or didn't in the past). In Seattle, you'd want Internap connectivity in Fisher and not Westin (no AT&T in Westin). NFO Chicago is not in the regular Internap cage in Equinix at Lakeside (where you have the best carrier mix), I believe it is in the Level3 facility in Chicago and lacks a couple of the quality carriers you'd expect to have for that price premium.

    Overall, Internap by itself is a quality product...however, with changes that ISPs have recently completed (namely Comcast and the other ISPs that it owns) the routing is completely different and has minimized the advantages of a pure Internap environment. In the past, Internap helped to assure a better route for Comcast clients because they relied on AT&T for their transit....no longer do they do that and that expensive AT&T connectivity isn't necessary. I was a long time pure Internap user that now uses BGP networks that include Internap in their mix.
    Joseph Laws
    President - Hi-Definition Gaming LLC

    (http://www.hd-gaming.com)
    Professional Gaming Services For The Professional Gamer

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by qwidjib0 View Post
    The only place I've ever seen the word "pure" used when describing network providers is amongst game server providers. To the rest of the Internet it's generally "single-homed".. I think this is why the topic brings up as much contention as it has here. On a technical level, if you have access to less direct peers, you have routes the are physically longer on average, and therefore very simply, most likely higher pings. This also creates a single point of failure and almost definitely a negative long-term effect on your uptime as well.

    You'll obviously know your customer base better than anyone though, so if it has marketing benefits to trump the technical drawbacks that keep most major network operators from running their network this way (which I would say is why you're having as hard a time as you are finding this), I'd say go for it. It should still be possible to get just Internap from a provider if it's in their upstream, however it does require capable equipment, administration, and a general willingness on their part there for them to make it worth their while. I would avoid going direct with Internap at all costs at that commitment level, I've personally watched almost identical 10Mbps agreements with Internap and Mzima put several of your competitors under... save that for when you're pushing a few Gbps.
    I'll leave aside the business considerations of a gaming company, as I have absolutely no experience in that area, but being "single homed" to Internap isn't like being single homed to a single Tier 1, and I think you know that. It's the same as being "single-homed" to anyone else that provides a BGP mix, yourself included. Weren't you guys "single homed" to another Tier 2, Mzima, at several locations for quite awhile (and still are)? Care to explain how Internap's multiple border routers using HSRP, with transit from 7-9 carriers, is somehow a single point of failure while your border routers (don't know if they are redundant or not) pulling Mzima & XO are more redundant?

    I would venture to guess most people mixing Internap with someone else are either doing so to reduce costs, or to be multihomed to get their own address space. Doing just straight BGP with Internap and other carriers doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good idea for strictly performance reasons--Internap is going to have a higher BGP hop count on just about every route as compared to a Tier 1, or even some Tier 2s, so you're going to be doing a lot of prefixing to get the performance benefit of Internap (using it with a FCP is a different story).

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by lockbull View Post
    I'll leave aside the business considerations of a gaming company, as I have absolutely no experience in that area, but being "single homed" to Internap isn't like being single homed to a single Tier 1, and I think you know that. It's the same as being "single-homed" to anyone else that provides a BGP mix, yourself included. Weren't you guys "single homed" to another Tier 2, Mzima, at several locations for quite awhile (and still are)? Care to explain how Internap's multiple border routers using HSRP, with transit from 7-9 carriers, is somehow a single point of failure while your border routers (don't know if they are redundant or not) pulling Mzima & XO are more redundant?

    I would venture to guess most people mixing Internap with someone else are either doing so to reduce costs, or to be multihomed to get their own address space. Doing just straight BGP with Internap and other carriers doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good idea for strictly performance reasons--Internap is going to have a higher BGP hop count on just about every route as compared to a Tier 1, or even some Tier 2s, so you're going to be doing a lot of prefixing to get the performance benefit of Internap (using it with a FCP is a different story).
    Took the words right out of my mouth...probably the only accurate post in this thread.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    337
    It is not really that hard to run pure Internap for certain customers if they want it. In our network we have around 7 Providers and still offer pure Internap to anyone who wants it, the rest of the providers act as failover if Internap was so ever happen to drop even with there 100% uptime SLA.
    Gary Simat
    COLO@ Colocation. Perfected.
    Atlanta - Dallas - Phoenix - Weehawken - Los Angeles - Chicago
    Total Server Solutions - Servers - US Based Support - Server Management

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Any provider that does BGP between Internap and other provider can offer pure Internap without any problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by lockbull View Post
    I would venture to guess most people mixing Internap with someone else are either doing so to reduce costs, or to be multihomed to get their own address space.
    to be multihomed, and also to provide an (active) backup link. We have other provider besides Internap, but solely for these two purposes rather than reducing costs.

    Doing just straight BGP with Internap and other carriers doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good idea for strictly performance reasons--Internap is going to have a higher BGP hop count on just about every route as compared to a Tier 1, or even some Tier 2s, so you're going to be doing a lot of prefixing to get the performance benefit of Internap (using it with a FCP is a different story).
    You simply put additional prefixes (multiple) on the other network to make Internap looks a much shorter. Quite simple.
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by lockbull View Post
    I'll leave aside the business considerations of a gaming company, as I have absolutely no experience in that area, but being "single homed" to Internap isn't like being single homed to a single Tier 1, and I think you know that. It's the same as being "single-homed" to anyone else that provides a BGP mix, yourself included. Weren't you guys "single homed" to another Tier 2, Mzima, at several locations for quite awhile (and still are)? Care to explain how Internap's multiple border routers using HSRP, with transit from 7-9 carriers, is somehow a single point of failure while your border routers (don't know if they are redundant or not) pulling Mzima & XO are more redundant?

    I would venture to guess most people mixing Internap with someone else are either doing so to reduce costs, or to be multihomed to get their own address space. Doing just straight BGP with Internap and other carriers doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good idea for strictly performance reasons--Internap is going to have a higher BGP hop count on just about every route as compared to a Tier 1, or even some Tier 2s, so you're going to be doing a lot of prefixing to get the performance benefit of Internap (using it with a FCP is a different story).
    That's all fair. Internap does have a respectable network, and 7-8 upstream providers that they buy from (although I believe in some of their locations there aren't more than 2 or 3), and I'd agree that it's not quite the same situation as with a Tier 1. While it's a good network, I haven't really seen them do anything that makes them supremely better than all other networks, however, and I've seen plenty of cases where other providers route better, including Tier 1's. For the longest time, Internap also proudly told people that they didn't peer - Mzima competes closely with Internap and has over 450 peers, avoiding the need to send traffic over upstream providers at all in most cases. From my understanding they also employ sFlow and do a variety of optimizations beyond BGP on their network using this tool, many of them automated, which falls right in line with Internap's marketing. Both networks clearly have their strengths and weaknesses.

    Regarding redundancy (and yes our routers are redundant, and we connect to Mzima, nLayer, Internap, and XO, not just those two), Internap is just as redundant. It would be the provider's connection to Internap that makes it not redundant (assuming that the provider buys redundant, diverse paths to Internap, that get connected on different linecards and routers - single providers POP's still go down all the time - here's a great example of where a single-homed Internap network in Denver would definitely have gone down just very recently: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=869424). It is true that our company was single-homed to Mzima for some time when we were first starting off, and even though Mzima has a fantastic and redundant network as well, and it costs us a lot more money to spread our commitments around, becoming multi-homed is still in the records on our end as one of the smartest decisions we've made.

    As far as cost is concerned; I'd be confident you can get Internap for much cheaper than most Tier 1's on a commit south of 10Gbps, and then maybe still - plus, buying less Internap and more of something else dilutes that commitment and likely raises your rates there too... for all the reasons that providers multi-home, saving money isn't one that I've generally seen come up and really work for people.
    Corey Northcutt | Northcutt
    Competitive inbound marketing with a hosting industry competency.
    Social | Content | Optimization | Outreach

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by HiDef-Laws View Post
    With "pure" Internap you also have to consider the building in which you are getting that connectivity. The Internap carrier mix is different in every building where they have a presence. For example, in New York you'd be looking for Internap in either 111 8th or 25 Broad (the other locations don't have AT&T or Level3...or didn't in the past). In Seattle, you'd want Internap connectivity in Fisher and not Westin (no AT&T in Westin). NFO Chicago is not in the regular Internap cage in Equinix at Lakeside (where you have the best carrier mix), I believe it is in the Level3 facility in Chicago and lacks a couple of the quality carriers you'd expect to have for that price premium.

    Overall, Internap by itself is a quality product...however, with changes that ISPs have recently completed (namely Comcast and the other ISPs that it owns) the routing is completely different and has minimized the advantages of a pure Internap environment. In the past, Internap helped to assure a better route for Comcast clients because they relied on AT&T for their transit....no longer do they do that and that expensive AT&T connectivity isn't necessary. I was a long time pure Internap user that now uses BGP networks that include Internap in their mix.
    This all looks pretty accurate as well.
    Corey Northcutt | Northcutt
    Competitive inbound marketing with a hosting industry competency.
    Social | Content | Optimization | Outreach

  30. #30
    I'm coming in late to this thread, and it sounds like the OP has already made his decision, but I thought I'd add a few things.

    Some of NuclearFallout's locations are also BGP mixed...not pure PNAP.
    Most are pure InterNAP, but the ones that aren't are clearly labeled so that there's no confusion.

    ..the only BGP mix location [NFO offers] for dedicated servers seems to be Los Angeles, where they don't seem to have an internap presence for whatever reason.
    NFO's Los Angeles locations are mostly InterNAP-based right now and will likely be switched to pure InterNAP in November. "Premium Seattle" is also currently a BGP mixed location, with InterNAP plus local peering and some additional transit.

    With "pure" Internap you also have to consider the building in which you are getting that connectivity. The Internap carrier mix is different in every building where they have a presence. For example, in New York you'd be looking for Internap in either 111 8th or 25 Broad (the other locations don't have AT&T or Level3...or didn't in the past). In Seattle, you'd want Internap connectivity in Fisher and not Westin (no AT&T in Westin).
    Buildings do matter with InterNAP, you are correct about that. However, over time, InterNAP has been consolidating them in many cities. Now, for instance, Fisher and Westin have been consolidated to use the exact same mix. (We're in both, and I actually used to prefer Westin, because it had Level3 whereas Fisher did not.)

    NFO Chicago is not in the regular Internap cage in Equinix at Lakeside (where you have the best carrier mix), I believe it is in the Level3 facility in Chicago and lacks a couple of the quality carriers you'd expect to have for that price premium.
    There are pros and cons to where NFO is in Chicago. It actually has the most important NSPs (Level3, Gblx, AT&T, etc) and leaves out some of the weaker ones (Cogent, Telia, etc), so overall it's probably a wash.

    Overall, Internap by itself is a quality product...however, with changes that ISPs have recently completed (namely Comcast and the other ISPs that it owns) the routing is completely different and has minimized the advantages of a pure Internap environment. In the past, Internap helped to assure a better route for Comcast clients because they relied on AT&T for their transit....no longer do they do that and that expensive AT&T connectivity isn't necessary. I was a long time pure Internap user that now uses BGP networks that include Internap in their mix.
    You're right that Comcast's switchover to Level3 and Global Crossing (as well as some peerings) has leveled the playing field a bit in areas where it is commonly used. It has also led to the need for inbound BGP prepend adjustments in order to keep latencies low for Comcast customers, in a few locations. There are a lot of other ISPs than Comcast out there, of course.

    InterNAP also peers with many ISPs directly now through its semi-autonomous "PNET" backbone. Not Comcast yet, though.

    As far as cost is concerned; I'd be confident you can get Internap for much cheaper than most Tier 1's on a commit south of 10Gbps
    InterNAP is very expensive, unfortunately. You'd be able to get tier 1 bandwidth at a much lower cost per megabit at pretty much any commit level (though in many cases you would need to go through a wholesaler/agent).
    John
    President, NFOservers (Nuclearfallout Enterprises, Inc.)
    High-performance (Xen) VPS hosting, game servers, Ventrilo/Murmur/Mumble/TS3 servers, and dedicated servers

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 09:26 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-04-2009, 05:10 PM
  3. Great deal on Managed Plesk Pure Internap Server at FastServers!
    By RossH in forum Dedicated Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-30-2004, 05:14 PM
  4. 3 servers available - Pure Internap
    By Leif in forum Dedicated Hosting Offers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-13-2003, 04:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •