Thanks for all the input, this has been fantastic. I decided to go with
co-location, especially after talking to a few providers. I normally
see pricing around $250-300 for a co-location, which is one reason I was
looking a doing it in-house since supplying my ownd bandwidth seemed to
match that price. Pretty sure that price is because you have to rent
the servers from them. When I talked to UVNet we found a plan that will
work for our initial launch at only about $60 a month. Had some long
e-mail exchanges with somebody there and am very pleased. The service
and general attitude was better then I have ever experienced with
customer service.
Eric Jensen
Peter Bowen wrote:
Eric,
There are a ton of reasons to keep this stuff in house, the best of
which is "you get really good bandwidth for the office." Followed
closely by "It's cheap" :) However, going through all of that work
still leaves you vulnerable to over or underbuying bandwith, and
reliability issues. Generally, if you can go with either a co-lo or a
hosted solution, you will save money and headache. When choosing, you
will want to look at facilities AND homing, that is how well connected
to the internet is your datacenter/ISP. If your ISP has to go to SLC
to go to Denver to catch the backbone, that's two extra hops., and
hops are generally bad. <WARNING>Here comes a plug (no pun
intended)</WARNING>
We (globalservers.com) have a shared solution that looks
dedicated. We have awsome bandwidth and protection from floods,etc.
You get root and for all intents and purposes it looks like a
dedicated box without the headaches. And for what you get, it's MUCH
more economical than trying to run a farm over DSL. Finally, we're
really well homed, with excellent connections to the backbone in Los
Angeles.
Allright, plug off... Whatever you do, hosting it yourself is
cheap but not reliable, and as reliablility increases, so does cost
and the relationship is hyperbolic - it takes an order of magnitude
more money for each increase in reliability. My advice is let
somebody else spend the money and figure out how to share so you're
only paying a small part of the total cost. Good Luck.
-Peter
Eric Jensen wrote:
Going to be launching a business management system and we are going
to host the web sites instead of distribute our code base. This is
where my knowledge gets pretty sparse. We would really like to run
our own servers from our location isntead of colocate. I looked at a
few ISPs and what they offer for DSL lines with a static IP and have
not been impressed. For $150-200 a month you can get a 384kb/s line
that is, according to them, perfect for web hosting. That just
doesn't make sense to me. When most users now days have closer to
1.5mb DSL (at around $30-40 a month mind you) how could you support
even 10 hits at a time and not get complaints about it being too
slow? We were thinking of getting one line with a static IP and then
a bunch of 1.5mb standard lines and merging them. We think that will
work fine for download, but not upload since we would go out on a
different IP. Seems like it would really screw up DNS, amongst other
things I'm sure. So what are our options if we want to keep the
equipment in-house? Am I missing something with these 384-ish DSL
lines designed for small-medium businesses?
Eric Jensen
.===================================.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`==================================='
.===================================.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`==================================='
.===================================.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`==================================='
