In-house Hosting Options

[Eric Jensen]

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   |
> `==================================='
>