<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Thanks for the info!<BR>
<BR>
Mitch.<BR>
<BR> <BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From: drorex@gmail.com<BR>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:02:20 -0800<BR>Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] colo in and around SF?<BR>To: maltman23@hotmail.com<BR>CC: noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net<BR><BR><A href="http://he.net/" target=_blank>http://he.net/</A> in Fremont has some incredibly decent prices for colocation, and while it's not in SF, it's close enough that you can drive out there if something needs manual fixin'. I think I saw a quote of like $1000/month for an entire rack full of your equipment with a 100mbit dedicated line. This might be out of your range though. You can get a decent entry dedicated server (you run the entire piece of hardware, no sharing or virtualization going on) for around $200/mo these days. I've used <A href="http://www.softlayer.com/" target=_blank>http://www.softlayer.com/</A> -- no significant problems with them so far. If that's still too much, colocating an individual server (that you buy yourself) within someone else's rack usually starts around $100/month. Lower than that, you're looking at shared or virtualized hosting.<BR><BR>I would recommend against EC2 unless you specifically need the ability to scale up and down on a moments notice (and are willing to put in the extra work to set it up correctly). For just a standard monthly rental, EC2 costs significantly more than even a leased dedicated server, never mind a self-colo'd server. They do have a thing where you can reserve an instance on a 1 year or 3 year basis, and that brings the costs down a bit to be more in line, but don't forget they also charge you for bandwidth & storage on top of the normal hourly server rental rates. Basically it's a nice technical solution, but not cost competitive except in some niche cases (eg if 50% of the time you have zero traffic, and 50% of the time you have tons of traffic, it might really be worth it)<BR><BR>Also I'd recommend against anything in SF itself...you are probably paying more for the location than anything else. Also I personally got burned by a really crappy managed host in SF before, so I'm a bit biased. They're not around any more, or at least not under the same name. (All I'll say is this: When setting up our servers + a fancy SAN, the tech told us he couldn't get it to work with debian or centos, so he had to install gentoo.)<BR><BR>
<DIV class=ecxgmail_quote>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Mitch Altman <SPAN dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:maltman23@hotmail.com">maltman23@hotmail.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=ecxgmail_quote>
<DIV>I'm considering an option to setup my own server at a colo space in the SF Bay Area. Though the site normally gets a couple thousand hits a day, and sometimes several thousand hits, it will occassionally need some pretty big bandwidth. Anyone have any opinions on who to use and not to use?<BR> <BR>Mitch.<BR> <BR></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</A><BR><A href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target=_blank>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR> </body>
</html>