Dedicated Servers vs. Colocating

[DanCF]

I have been contemplating taking the plunge from renting dedicated servers to buying them and colocating them. I know this is what all the bigger companies do, but I have done the math again and again, and it just doesn't work out.

 

 

 

Say you buy a Dual Xeon 3.0Ghz - thats atleast $1,500 upfront with generous parts. Plus almost every datacenter I look at ends up being more expensive to colocate at then rent the dedicated server. This being because During the evening and nighttime hours my servers reach about 5mps, but later in the evening into the morning hours and into the workday, they float around a few hundred kb/second. This averages out nicely for a server with 1500GB/monthly average. However for a colocated machine on the 95th percentile you are looking at 4mps * $100/mps which ends up costing you $100 more/month then if you were to rent the Dedicated server with the 1500GB/monthly.

 

 

 

Am I missing part of the equation here?

[DougK94]

It all depends on the number of servers you have. If you can fill a rack or so at a datacenter, you are usually better off colocating. But if you have 1 to approx 6 servers, you are generally better off leasing.

 

 

 

I have enough total servers to colocate, but they are spread among 4 different datcenters, so for now, leasing is the cheapest and best for me.

[kalyse]

Doug do you do your own colocation or do it with a larger company?

[DougK94]

I am leasing all of my servers from 4 different datacenters. I originally started doing just webhosting and had a 1/2 rack here locally with my own systems in it, but the bandwidth charges here are outrageous, I could not afford the bandwidth charges for busy game servers. When I started doing game servers, I began leasing the servers in Dallas. Then as the demand increased for other locations also, I added Chicago and NY and a second datacenter in Dallas. I may look to LA and or Atlanta in the future. I just recently moved all of my webhosting to leased systems too. It was time to start replacing my colo systems, and by the time I calculated in the cost of new hardware, OS and control panel licensing fees and bandwidth charges, for me it was cheaper to lease them also. If I had all of my servers in the same location, I would probably have gone with colo instead of leasing.

 

 

 

As I said earlier, you will have to see which fits your needs and your budget/business model the best. This works best for my situation, but may not be for you. There are pros and cons to either method. I work 40-50 hrs a week at my real job and am on call 24/7. I do the web/game servers in my spare time along with being a single parent. I am close to the point that I need to start thinking about adding some help, but then I have to figure out how to pay them . But so far, my customers are very pleased with the level of support I give them. Overall I am averaging about 50 minutes 1 hr for resolution to a support ticket (usually within 15 minutes or so) and the longest I have ever gone is 4 hrs, so I think I am doing good there (better than what I have heard about many of the 'big' boys). Being a 1 man show, also plays into my calculations for leasing rather than colo. There are just not enough hrs in the day for me to also deal with the hardware and routing/networking issues which can crop up with colo.

 

 

 

Maybe someone who voted for colo will chime in with their thoughts and experiences

[qwidjib0]

Colocation should save you money in the long run, but dedicated will save you a lot of headaches in the event of a hardware failure, upgrading, or changing locations.

[Daersun]

In Atlanta and Chicago (gnax/steadfast) dedicated is cheaper for up to 2 servers, then - when you have 2 servers you can get

 

 

 

25 per u to colo then split 10meg unmetered across both of them.