Who Has The Best 1gbps Dedicated Colo Offer
Mar 12, 2008I'm looking to get a 500mbps or a 1 gbps dedicated colo plan for 2 streaming servers.
View 14 RepliesI'm looking to get a 500mbps or a 1 gbps dedicated colo plan for 2 streaming servers.
View 14 RepliesI do not understand what network: 5 mbps and the traffic 1Gbps mean
=========
CPU Intel Core2-Duo E4500
2.2GHz-FSB 800MHz -L2 2MB
RAM DDR2 PC2-5300 (667Mhz) 2GB
HDD SATA2 250GB (7,200rpm)
LANcard Intel PRO/1000 PF Server Adapter
Rack Type 1U (4.5cm)
Network: 5Mbps
Traffic 1Gbps Dedicated Line
=======
I currently have godaddy dedicated server and the 100mbps connection is shared with other servers, and I pay about $120 a month. I normally get an average of 30mbps out of it. Do you guys know of any cheap hosting companies that offer dedicated servers with a 1Gbps shared connection? And the main point I'm trying to get to is, do you guys know of any web hosts that would be faster than an average of 30mbps, even if they're only 100mbps shared connections? I'd really appreciate any potential hosts you guys can direct me to that are pretty fast.
View 3 Replies View RelatedThe datacenter I am looking at to colo does not offer Plesk at all.
My only option is to buy direct from Plesk, however I was wondering if there were companies that did external licenses of somesort.
In our search for a colo provider, we have contacted a number of providers for quotes. However one problem pops up, good rates but no Cpanel.
We found on provider that meets our requirements: good rates and Cpanel.
We contacted Colo4dallas but no Cpanel. No response to phone call or website form from NY NOC after 2 days. FDC was very responsive and helpful.
Are there any other's with a good rep, good rates, and Cpanel? We are just waiting on shipment of the box now.
I'm hunting for a decent dedicated server and I see all the major resellers, but NONE of them offer sql server 2008 web edition which microsoft put in place to make sql server more affordable for internet facing sites.
I see great deals on dedicates, but all only want to offer sql server standard for a couple hundred a month, when microsoft has updated their plans for 2008 to make it more affordable with web edition
are there any providers out there that will offer a core to you server, i.e. dual qauad core machine would be runing no more than 8 with each account have a single core each?
View 7 Replies View Relatedare there any that offers 1 month trial? I saw one that offered 3 month trial....
View 14 Replies View Relatedi just want to know hosting company any hosting company can offer free dedicated IP?
View 19 Replies View RelatedHow do I offer cPanel to a dedicated server customer or any kind of CP?
I checked out cpanel.net and they have a "Rent or Buy licenses" and also "Purchase license" link. Those seem expensive. But how do the rest in the industry charge only $10 or even $5 for a cPanel install for dedicated server customers?
I've been a colo since the beginning of time. My servers are getting old so I've started pricing options, and it looks like dedicated is the way to go today. But I'm not sure...
I suppose it depends on the host. My host says "if you're colo, we provide admin at an hourly rate. If your machine needs a reboot, call us and we reboot it. If you're dedicated we don't touch your server beyond repairing it. If it needs a reboot, you login to our site and click a link and it is rebooted."
That doesn't seem like much of a difference. I'd need an off-site admin, but both charge by the hour, so no big deal. A live person reboot seems no better than a web-based software reboot. In fact I'll wager that the "live person" just logs in and clicks the link for me.
Colo is about twice as expensive as dedicated. That seems like the only big difference.
It also seems to me that with today's cPanel-style admin it's trivial to migrate to a new host, so competition to keep clients is intense. I'm guessing that keeps prices down. Reading between the lines of what my host says, I can tell he doesn't really want me to go dedicated. He kinda said they don't make much money on dedicated machines.
I've been dealing with VPS and dedicated servers primarily.
Is there any benefit of switching to colocation? When should one consider switching to colocation? And should he at all?
We host a huge image host that is spread across 3 dual xeon machines on 100mb unmetered machines.
Each machine uses up about 12-15TB a month and we need more.
I've seen some sales lately with 8 core machines on 1gb unmetered ports.
We don't need management but we do need a SLA as we are going to put all of our "eggs" in one "basket".
My question is: can you guys recommend a cheap 1gb unmetered provider?
We will need a 8 core machine with 8gb ram and at least 2x1TB drives and we will use at least 80TB a month of bw (80% out going and 20% in going).
I tried OVH but seems they cap it at 100mbs average which isn't good enough.
Also looked at FDC but seems the prices are 3xtimes more then EU based machines.
I'm ok with EU/US machines as customers are from US and EU.
For the last few weeks I have been looking around at various colo and dedi offers here and there because I was thinking of saving some money by colocating a server and I noticed that everyone who offers both colo and dedi have things fixed so that the colo is much more expensive than renting a dedi from the same people in the exact same datacenters!
You would think that since a brand new server costs between $500 and $2500 to build or buy that amortizing of the cost of the hardware would make the dedis more expensive but in fact the opposite is true 90% of the time and only rarely does a host offer a colo plan that even matches their dedi plans. There are exceptions, like FDC for example but most of the time when you sit down and look at the price per mbps and the price per amp the colocation for a standard 8GB/quadcore/500GB server doing 2 TB of bandwidth is more just in monthly rental than if you rented a dedi(that the company owns).
So, in other words if I am renting a dedi with 8GB RAM, Quadcore CPU, 500GB hard drive with 5000 GB bandwidth quota on a 100mbps uplink for $125 to $150 a month and I wanted to save money by swapping it out with my own dedi of the same specs I would right away lose the cost of the dedi and then each month lose even more just in the colo fees along.
So what exactly is going on here? Are hosts overselling their dedis and making losses on a few but profits on most? And then on top of that artificially bloating their colo prices to encourage people to rent dedis instead? Or...do they just bloat colo prices out of fear and expectation that anyone who colos will be blasting their servers to the max and sucking up the mostest amps while using all the bandwidth that they buy?
I'm thinking of moving from a dedicated server to colocation. The two reasons for this are -
A. I'd like to actually own my server (considering a Dell rack.)
B. There seems to be a very big price difference between renting a high spec dedicated server and just having your own high spec server in a data centre.
My worries are as follows -
1. Should I install the new server in the data centre before putting Linux etc. on it? Or should I put everything I want on it before it goes to the data centre? Or do racks normally come with Linux pre-installed? I have no idea. What's the normal procedure for new servers?
2. Would it be easy/painless to transfer my websites from my current server to the new colo server? I rely on WHM/Cpanel for a lot of my admin work. I'm not useless, but I'm not good enough to manualy configure DNS etc. myself. Could one of the outsourced administration companies take care of all this for me?
I have been reviewing online price quotes for colo hosting and dedicated server hosting. To me, common sense would be that it would be less expensive to get a cheapo used server off of ebay and have it colocated. But what I am seeing is many instances where it would would actually be less expensive per month to rent a dedicated server (which might even be a better server) - including in some cases from the very same companies that offer the colo services. Is what I am seeing typical - and, if so, why is this the case? Is there an assumption that a colo customer will use more bandwidth than a typical dedicated server customer? Is the cost of servicing a colo customer significantly greater than that of a dedicated server customer?
View 7 Replies View RelatedWe're currently with Rackspace with three dedicated boxes from them that we got several years ago. Rackspace has been a relativly good service for us up until last year.
Basically, the people before me were content with letting the servers sit there as they were loaded up more and more with virtual domains, more spam trap e-mail accounts and so on. Anyone who's been fourth in line will know the feeling.
Anyway, now that I am here, there are a lot of things that I'm finding we're paying Rackspace for that I could manage better on my own "if".
So, to cut costs, improve performance (we're still paying a premium price for machines that I've begun retiring from desktop usage) and generally give the webmaster more toys to tinker with, we've been discussing colocation of our own machines.
I've spoken to a LOT of people, having submitted Colotraq requests, googled, lurked on this forum (I've been a member for years, several times, actually) and discussed with friends and colleagues over IRC.
That said, I'm not finding a lot of "good options". Perhaps I'm a little biased, I've found a single host with just about everything I want, but due to a directive from my CEO, we can't use them.
Here I'll plug someone. One of the most attentive people I've ever met has been Dallas Kincaid of Xecu.net in Frederick MD. This man jumped through hoops to provide me information about his services, offered darn good rates and is generally a great person to deal with. The problem with using them is that one of our direct competitors, someone we've just ended years of litigation with, colocates with Xecu.net and I was barred from pursuing them as an option.
Anyway, here's what I require.
We currently run RHEL 2.1 AS, which needs being replaced, but as is the case in corporate settings, this has to be done gradually, without disturbing the delicate customers. On that system we've also got a slew of proprietary application that we're not willing to replace out right, but we plan to phase out over time in favor of Free Software offerings (some written in house).
I plan on running some kind of virtualization (not certain which yet, as there are pros for each) to keep these legacy systems in place while migrating our clients over as possible. Because I'm not sure what our needs in a year might be, we may deploy more VM's on the same physical machines.
A coloprovider with reasonable and abundant IP address policy and a TOS that allows virtual servers is a MUST.
One of our requirements is that the facility is in the general DC/Dulles area so that I may get to the server from my home or from work easily.
We also plan to utilize a dedicated firewall, a dedicated spam filtering appliance and a storage server. I have no problem paying for unused space if the price is reasonable, so colo providers selling 1/4 and 1/2 racks are fine even though we won't use it all.
Rackspace doesn't monitor 95th percentile bandwidth, so I'm not sure what I'd need if 95th percentile was used. However, the average monthly (combined) volume from our servers now is between 280 and 375 GB.
Does anybody here have experience with a provider they KNOW would meet my needs, so that I can compare pricing? If you've got kudos or horror stories, I'd like to hear those as well. I'm willing to overlook a reasonable price difference for good service, follow through or expertise.
I'm investigating "suspects" that could be used in a server access environment. My requirements are:
*24 or 48 10/100/1000 Mbps Ports
*Atleast 2 x 1000Mbps uplinks (fiber preferred)
*SNMP-enabled for remote bandwidth polling @ ports and uplinks
*Simple Layer 3 allowing for per port rate limiting
VLAN creation support would be a plus, but not required
The switch needs to be able to handle ~1000Mbps of constant usage
I would be open to using non-Cisco switches as well.
Please give me the difference. Colo in carrier hotel, we can choose our preferred network provider, but should we do that if we cannot have our own tech in datacenter? How about the supporting service from carrier hotel? Just general question, cause I dont address exactly which facility.
And the second would be more expensive? Saying the same number of rack, amount of bandwidth... Who is providing IP addresses then?
This is probably a dumb question, but I've been curious about something. While shopping around for either a cheap dedicated server (less than $75/mo) or a cheap colo for a 1u server, I have noticed that the cheap dedicated servers are often less than a cheap colo, which seems odd to me since with a colo you bring your own machine.
For example, Sago Networks has cheap dedicateds for $50, $59, $79 etc. yet their cheapest colo option is $99. For Sago's $50 dedicated you get 1000GB transfer and 2 IP's, and with their $99 colo you get only get 100 GB transfer and 1 IP.
And Sago is not unusual in this respect. I've priced other providers that fall into this category and they have similar differences.
So why is colo more expensive than dedicated for similar, if not lower, features?
I have a 'complex' situation, if you will. The site I run has free access to a variety of server hardware. Sitting under my desk, I currently have:
1. Dual Xeon 5345 (quad core, 2.33GHz) with 8GB memory, mid-tower
2. Quad Opteron 8xx (dual core, 2.2GHz) with 16GB memory, 3U
3. Dual Xeon 5160 (dual core, 3GHz) with 4GB memory, mid-tower
We also have the appropriate licenses for Windows and MSSQL (which is what we use).
I am currently on a shared host that we'd like to move away from. We would like to have the ability to run both a production and a development environment. We'd also like to be able to offer web-hosting to a couple of other small sites...
So what I'm wondering is whether it really makes sense to colo. Honestly, it seems like we'll get a lot more bang for our buck versus dedicated. Most dedicated servers that are under 200 could only be described as sad and pathetic. However, they may be enough for what we need....
Offering Ruby on Rails on a regular shared environment server. I can easily install this but the question is, should I install it?
Is it going to use up a lot of server resources?
Should I dedicated one server alone for a Ruby on Rails installation?
Is it worth installing? If you have used ROR in the past, what is your experience
regarding it...does it raise conversion rates?
my friend install VMware on his server to run vps, it looks likely interesting, do you use VMware to offer vps?
View 10 Replies View Relatedhow hosters manage to offer Windows VPSs. Obviously, they pay for the host OS, if using virtuozzo, but then how does the guest OS/VPS license work?
View 10 Replies View RelatedI need a VPS with Cpanel/WHM/WHMCS or iHost.
Looking to spend around 25 - 40 month.
The must allow free hosting with legal adult content.
Right now i am with a reseller and the are abusing their downtime.
Hi everyone - I'm looking for a dedicated service provider (US based) that can provide at least 256 IP addresses on a per server basis
I would also like the provider to offer 100mbit and preferably 1Gbit connections. If possible I would like to keep my costs under $200 a month, not sure if that's realistic but ya never know.
Total storage and data transfer limits aren't really an issue.
I found a company server . lu that provides a /64 IPv6 allocation, which is mindblowing - but they're europe based so that won't work.
i know 100/10 port can offer 100M max,
but i see a article say the performance of 100/10 port usually can not reach 100M,
if it can reach 50%,it is already very good.
because a user want to rent 50M bandwidth from me,
i worry if my switch may really reach 50M on the 100/10 port for him,
my firend ask me had better use a 1000/100/10 port for the case.
my switch is d-link des-3526.
thinking about it's to find some solution for offer 100% uptime for my customers.
Actually I have 4 servers running cpanel, my idea it's to setup another server where I put 4 VPS with a copy of the servers, and in case them fails, I up the VPS.
Real dedicated server will be ns1.
And the VPS will be ns2.
What I don't know how to manage it's the cpanel license, because if I want to have a copy of the servers in VPS I have to pay that licenses sure?
Also, today I see the DNS ONLY cpanel, could be better option? I'm also testing some cloud systems like mosso cloud servers and gogrid, but this don't allow me to be 100% and free of hardware failures.
And yes, not 100% because it's impossible, but 99,9999999%
I saw on Pacific Rack they have a section where they offer Rent To Own (RTO) servers. This is what I've been looking for and would like to know if any other host have this kind of offering?
From what I read from the site, RTO servers feature server financing over a set period of months, allowing a capital strapped customer from the initial large expense of purchasing a server. RTO server's are subscribed to as dedicated servers with part of your monthly payment going torwards the cost of the server. Once the set period of months has been reached, the server ownership is transferred to you. You then convert to a colocation plan, benefiting from asset ownership. Once you own the server, you can do what you wish with it, including having it shipped to you. (taken from PR website)
I'm currently doing close to a 25,000 daily unique average on my site and coming close to 12TB or monthly bandwidth transfer. With most DS Hosting services, I would usually be offered virtual rack solutions with multiple machines that would help raise my monthly limit but it would be greatly cost effective if I just stuck with one powerful server that offers unmetered bandwidth at a great price.
View 13 Replies View Relatedbasically the have the best global speed. my friend tell me i should find server with this NAPs, but how?
att
nti
asn
savvis
gblx