Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Dedicated web hosting as a replacement for colocation. ( Answered 2 out of 5 stars,   1 Comment )
Question  
Subject: Dedicated web hosting as a replacement for colocation.
Category: Computers > Internet
Asked by: jonathanjonathan-ga
List Price: $100.00
Posted: 14 May 2003 08:19 PDT
Expires: 13 Jun 2003 08:19 PDT
Question ID: 203609
I have priced this question high in an effort to attract through and
researched answer hopefully based on real world experience. I will
provide a tip for an excellent answer. I have read the answers already
provided to most of the web hosting questions posted here.
 
Traditionally we have used collocation to place our machines in
somebody else's facility. The problem that has precipitated our
immediate need for a change is their poor connectivity and our being
limited to colo's physically close to us so we can manage the
machines.

We'd like to stop managing our own hardware, we'd actually like to
stop managing our system software and security as well, but we have
some non standard needs so that may not be possible or may be a
separate question.

After some research at webhostingtalk.com I think that rackspace.com
looks like it might fit our needs well. My questions are:

1. Who are three companies that are a good fit with our needs (other
than rackspace.com)?
   - What are their comparatives merits and challenges.
2. Is rackspace.com a good fit, what are there comparative merits and
challenges.
3. What are other alternatives or considerations that I have not
mentioned here here that I should be aware of

Our hardware needs are something like:
1 Very high end box for a database (multi xeon, 4-8gb of ram) with
hardware raid or san for atleast 500 GB)
4 High end (multi xeon, 2-8gb of ram) with raid
4 Medium Fast single CPU 2 GB ram with raid
3 Modest CPU 1-2 GB ram

We currently own the necessary hardware, but need not necessarily use
our own hardware.

Our requirements are as follows:
--------------------------------

1. A network that understands that a portion of our business involves
sending permission based email. WE ARE NOT SPAMMERS, but we do send
permission based email and sometimes somebody complains. We can
provide information supporting subscription for any subscriber (date,
time, ip, method, etc), and we confirm subscriptions and we respect
unsubs, but people forget and I we can not have servers taken off line
with out notification because some idiot forgot he signed up.

2. Network redundancy. The network must not go down. There must be
connectivity through at least 3 separate providers. There must be
excellent peering relationships.

3. They must provide dual cpu machines running RH Linux (preferable
7.3, but this is negotiable) which support at least four (4) gigs of
ram (more is better).

4. The provider must be responsible for the hardware maintenance and
provide 24x7 staff for hardware failure. Professionally reasonable
standards for hardware replacement/repair must be offered.

5. They must either maintain the servers and install the software we
require, or provide us root access and allow us to maintain the boxes

6. They must provide backup services (not to the same machine) for
full weekly backups atleast 500 GB of data across multiple machines
and daily incremental. They must save backups for atleast 14 days, 28
days is very desirable. They must provide a set of backup tapes at
reasonable cost on demand.

7. Connectivity at 100Mbs not 10Mbs

9. We do about 1200 GB of transfer per month, we should neither be
their biggest or smallest customer

10. To be able to make DNS changes with out waiting on people or
opening a ticket.

11. Multiple IP address per machine. We can not use name based virtual
hosting. We can provide justification, but do not want a hassle around
this issue.

12. They must provide an SLA for 99.9% uptime, 99.99% or better is
preferable.

13. They must be financially stable.

14. They must have been in business for at least 2 years.


What we'd like (by have some flexibility around):
-------------------------------------------------

1. We'd like name brand hardware.

2. We'd like remote console access.

3. We'd like to pay for bandwidth that leaves the network, rather than
traffic between our own servers. This is usually difficult or
impossible for folks that meter traffic at a port level.

4. We'd like access to load balancing and firewall services available

5. SANs might be useful

6. Private networking between the boxes would be nice.

7. I'd like lead time to get a new box up to be less than 5 business
days.

8. I'd like lead time to get hardware upgrades to be less than 5
business days.

9. System Admin services on the boxes could be interesting.

10. Annual contracts are fine, 30 day written notice is fine, provided
that there is some price protection.
Answer  
Subject: Re: Dedicated web hosting as a replacement for colocation.
Answered By: arimathea-ga on 20 May 2003 16:09 PDT
Rated:2 out of 5 stars
 
jonathanjonathan-ga,

Thanks for the opportunity to answer these questions!

I anticipate this will be a multi-part answer and you will need some
additional clarification on my answer.

Rackspace.com is a well-known provider in this space, and is certainly
one of the larger companies.  Another example of a corporation in that
space would be Interland.  There are hundreds of smaller hosting
companies (Voxel, Dreamhost, NAC.NET, etc) that could offer similar
services.  DellHost also competes in that space.

There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to collocation, as
you have noted, and it is not suitable for all businesses.  There is a
fine line being walked between targeted e-mail (opt-in, as you
describe), UCE, and mailed directions to jump pages.    I'd like to go
down your requirements list first, and evaluate how providers should
handle each of these and offer some commentary.

1. A network that understands that a portion of our business involves
sending permission based email. WE ARE NOT SPAMMERS, but we do send
permission based email and sometimes somebody complains. We can
provide information supporting subscription for any subscriber (date,
time, ip, method, etc), and we confirm subscriptions and we respect
unsubs, but people forget and I we can not have servers taken off line
with out notification because some idiot forgot he signed up.

This varies widely per business, as you no doubt have found.  Some
people, as soon as you say the word "mailing", run away screaming in
fear regardless of the potential profit available in that business. 
Others understand statements such as yours and will be happy to move
forward in the relationship.  It just depends.

2. Network redundancy. The network must not go down. There must be
connectivity through at least 3 separate providers. There must be
excellent peering relationships.

You'll find that many hosting companies with the exception of DellHost
and Interland do have strong connectivity but NOT necessarily strong
peering relationships.  DellHost and Interland have benefits here in
that they have multiple hosting centers and have focused their
connectivity around neutral facilities, such as Equinix and PAIX.  
There is an additional set of research that would need to be performed
here to carefully evaluate actual connectivity.  Providers will say
often that "we have transit through group X" but the reality is they
have transit through group Y who then sends through group X.

3. They must provide dual cpu machines running RH Linux (preferable
7.3, but this is negotiable) which support at least four (4) gigs of
ram (more is better).

This is a very easy requirement to satisfy and most providers will be
willing to do so.

4. The provider must be responsible for the hardware maintenance and
provide 24x7 staff for hardware failure. Professionally reasonable
standards for hardware replacement/repair must be offered.

This is standard among all but the most fly-by-night hosting
companies.  Smaller regionals and nationals, such as DreamHost, may
require additional charges for this service.
 
5. They must either maintain the servers and install the software we
require, or provide us root access and allow us to maintain the boxes

This, again, is a very common request among "dedicated" as opposed to
"shared" hosts and is easily satisfied.
 
6. They must provide backup services (not to the same machine) for
full weekly backups atleast 500 GB of data across multiple machines
and daily incremental. They must save backups for atleast 14 days, 28
days is very desirable. They must provide a set of backup tapes at
reasonable cost on demand.

This is a significant request.  Many providers (including Rackspace,
if I recall) do not offer backup services with this kind of
flexibility.  Here you are moving into a slightly different realm,
that of hosters such as Springboard, Peak Ten, NAC, etc who are more
willing to work with you but are more focused in a "collocation"
environment as opposed to a dedicated, managed hosting service.  That
being said, however, it is not unreasonable to have them (meaning
whoever your provider of choice is) prepare a backup service for you
under contract with, for instance, Iron Mountain and have them manage
tape storage.
 
7. Connectivity at 100Mbs not 10Mbs 

This, again, is very standard.

9. We do about 1200 GB of transfer per month, we should neither be
their biggest or smallest customer.

This equates to roughly 3-5Mb/s if my calculations are correct.  Most
providers can handle this easily.  Look for someone with well-utilized
OC3 circuits.
 
10. To be able to make DNS changes with out waiting on people or
opening a ticket.

Many more popular dedicated managed providers offer this service.  As
I recall, Rackspace does.  Dreamhost is actually very good in this
area, offering a solid control panel interface with rapid response.

11. Multiple IP address per machine. We can not use name based virtual
hosting. We can provide justification, but do not want a hassle around
this issue

Any provider in this business who cannot understand this request
should be out of this business.

12. They must provide an SLA for 99.9% uptime, 99.99% or better is
preferable.

Many providers in dedicated, managed hosting environments are doing
five nines or better, given that you have either a) multiple servers
with them or b) they have a large "virtual" or blade installation.
 
13. They must be financially stable. 

The hosting market is undergoing a chaotic change right now and the
financial stability of companies outside of the ones with other
businesses (e.g. Dell) is in serious question.
 
14. They must have been in business for at least 2 years. 

See #13.

Your "likes" are all reasonable, with the exception of SANs, which
most people aren't doing.

I'm curious why you aren't working with another company (such as
Twelve Horses) to support your campaign management (speaking of
alternatives).

jonathanjonathan-ga, the truth is, you really have a ton of options
here.  Your requirements, even with backup, are not extraordinary. 
There are some smaller providers who are well connected (National
Networks, NAC.net, Hurricane Electric) who all come to mind who would
probably be more than willing to architect a solution for you in terms
of reasonable price.  Those folks are all well-connected in terms of
transit, and in NAC and HE's case, have very strong peering
arrangements.  Peering won't help you if you don't have a good
understanding of what networks you have to send your traffic to, and
if you do most people will work out a private interconnect arrangement
for you anyway.  Many of the providers listed here are extremely
clueful and "old hands" at this business.

Best of luck to you; I look forward to followups and will be doing
some additional research wrt other providers in this space vs your
requirements and post anything "new" I find.

Sincerely,
arimathea-ga
Researcher

Request for Answer Clarification by jonathanjonathan-ga on 22 May 2003 14:44 PDT
I think what I'm looking for here are very specific solutions, with
the pros / cons of each listed.  For example, I'd like a list such
as...

1. Three recommended hosting companies other than RSpace:
  A. Hosting Co. A
    1. Pros
    2. Cons
  B. Hosting Co. B
    1. Pros
    2. Cons
  C. Hosting Co. C
    1. Pros
    2. Cons
2. RackSpace
  A. Pros
  B. Cons
3. Things I haven't taken into consideration.

Basically, more specific answers (with the why and why not), as well
as anything else I might have left out.  For instance, arimathea-ga
noted that I didn't think about outsourcing backup altogether to
another party (though I imagine if we did so, it would involve
off-site bandwidth -- a HUGE consideration, considering the volume).

I've done much research; now I'm looking for actual recommendations!  =)

Clarification of Answer by arimathea-ga on 23 May 2003 05:46 PDT
DellHost -
  Pros
    Reputable firm, backed by Sprint and other transit providers.

    Name-brand hardware

    Variable solutions

    Good backups

  Cons
    Expensive (Dual Xeon, base 1GB RAM = $549)

    May be averse to mailings

    Low bandwidth

DreamHost -
  Pros
    Strong control panel interface

    Meets hardware requirements 

    Closer to bandwidth requirements

  Cons
    May be averse to mailings (spam policy
http://www.dreamhost.com/spam.html)

    Not name-brand hardware

    Good customer support ethic

Voxel -

  Pros

    More availability for custom solutions, dedicated hardware

    Strong connectivity

    Good relationship within the community

  Cons

    No published pricing

    May be averse to mail

Rackspace

  Name brand hardware

  Strong connectivity arrangements

  Online configurator

  Strong support

  Decent pricing (for dedicated services)

  Plesk management panel

  Storage products

--
Most providers have a specific policy on permission-based e-mail.  If
lists are reliable and the e-mail genuinely is opt-in, you probably
will not have a problem but need to make sure this information is in
your contract up front.

Other recommendations:

It seems to me you would be better served (based on your requirements)
to purchase and collocate your own gear.  You have more control over
"system-to-system" traffic (likes #3), load balancing, and SANs.  You
would probably pay less to have someone manage this stuff in a "remote
hands" or consulting context than you would by spending
~$500-$1000/month for a dedicated, managed server.

Can I help further?
jonathanjonathan-ga rated this answer:2 out of 5 stars
Not very much actual info, no effort to list the abilities of specific
hosts. Not worth the money

Comments  
Subject: Re: Dedicated web hosting as a replacement for colocation.
From: pynchon-ga on 14 May 2003 08:58 PDT
 
These are the three that I would try:

www.burst.net
www.servepath.com
a smaller company I have really liked working with is:
smack inc out of cananda
www.smackinc.com ask for LEE

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy