Dedicated versus Colocation

SenseiSteve

SenseiSteve

HD Moderator
Staff member
Looking for input to refine/add to this list.
Thanks

What factors or guidelines lead businesses to select dedicated versus colocated?

Starting with:

In-house technical expertise

Proximity of data center

Are managed services available

Can the data center manage Microsoft Exchange Server (if you need that)

Are monitoring services available

What about backups and disaster recovery -

Cost of power - is 120 and 208v and 20 and 30A available?

Type of bandwidth offered (BGP/Cogent)? What type of failover is available?

Flexibility to upgrade and scalability factors

Entry cost

SLA (Service Level Agreement)

Terms of Service

Current reviews of each

Capital Asset Expense

Of course there are pros and cons to each plan, and neither may be the perfect solution for your requirements. Most hosts will work to customize a solution that matches your requirements.

Colocation Pros:

If you’re in close geographical proximity to the data center, you can work on your own equipment (upgrades, etc.) avoiding the cost of outsourced parts and labor.

As you grow, savings from colocation grow as well

It’s still your equipment, so it’s easier to migrate to another provider should problems arise.

As a rule, it’s generally less expensive when compared to unmanaged dedicated

Your fixed assets show on your balance sheet, indicating higher net worth (important to banks and potential customers).

If you’re using accrual accounting, you’ll be able to show profitability on your income statement by spreading expenses over three to five years (depreciation).

Dedicated Pros:

For smaller customers, dedicated makes more business sense

A broad range of managed services are available

The server belongs to the host and it’s their responsibility to maintain and keep it running

Their techs are familiar with the hardware more so than they would be with your colocated equipment

You benefit from data center amenities that may not be included in colocation packages (firewalls, load balancing)

Entry costs are lower and scalability is enhanced

O/S maintenance and upgrades may be included as optional managed services

Allows you to outsource IT expertise so you can do what you do best - drive your business
 
Sorry I don't have more to add to your list but we get requests for:

- Meet Me Rooms
- Other Teleco for things like VoIP, remote dialup server management etc
 
Also Colocation can save you money and you own the hardware. It might cost more at the beginning but you will own your hardware and the cost per month is usually lower.
 
Long term, larger scale, colocating is always more cost effective, but many negate to note hardware replacement costs/downtime. Still a much better solution of a larger scale :)
 
Co-location would definately save the cost. Initially the cost would be more as you need to purchase the hardware but later on will reduce the per month costing
 
One of the cons of server co-location in a facility that offers dedicated servers is that you won't qualify for their software licensing. You can usually save a bundle on software by leasing servers vs co-locating your own.

Although if software licenses aren't important then this isn't a con for you:)
 
woods01 said:
One of the cons of server co-location in a facility that offers dedicated servers is that you won't qualify for their software licensing. You can usually save a bundle on software by leasing servers vs co-locating your own.

Although if software licenses aren't important then this isn't a con for you:)
Click to expand...

IMO when you've got enough servers where colo makes financial sense there's much you can do to get your own licensing deals directly.
 
Oddly we went from leasing, to co-location, and BACK to leasing :)

By leasing (while MUCH more expensive) it allowed our company to focus on continued growth and also employ staff from around the country. When we were co-locating, we had to focus many of our resources locally so that if something happened and hardware needed to be replaced, we had staff locally to take care of the incident. NEVER fun when you're 100 miles off the coast fishing in Mexico and you find out a hard drive crashed :) Co-location can mean a lot of missed vacations when you're a small operation!
 
rumsfo said:
Colocation is the same as dedicated server. Just with some Datacenter nightmares time by time
Click to expand...
Dediated is NOT the same as colocation. Dedicated servers are owned by the provider, then leased to its clients. Colocated servers are owned by the clients who lease space at a data center to house them there, taking advantage of their infrastructure and redundancy.
 
We hold both dedicated & colocated servers. I love the cost savings from colocation and the tax benefits. However, I do not like the cost when having to replace a motherboard or dealing with a hard drive failure.

The item that I look forward to most from a colocation provider is their network and their staff. I like to have some free hands included in the contract which many providers now are giving 2 hours free.
 
Very nice breakdown there mate. I know that sometimes people get that funny look on their face when you mention which might be better.

<think>And it makes ya go hmm</think>
 
shockym said:
Very nice breakdown there mate. I know that sometimes people get that funny look on their face when you mention which might be better.

<think>And it makes ya go hmm</think>
Click to expand...

I love seeing peoples reaction to that question. I think many assume dedicated servers are always the way to go. Both of them have their pros & cons. It is amazing at how uneducated people are though.
 
ronweeks said:
If you have a lot of servers, colo does sound better, and in the long term will be more cost effective.
Click to expand...

This is often the case, long term collocation is often much cheaper however if a large number of hardware advances happen in a short period this can put pressure on providers.

As most if not all providers will show what their server is, processor wise at least. Clients always seem to gel or stick to this information as they automatically link this to performance, especially within the reseller crowd, however as we all know the best processor wont ensure the best performance.

Dedicated does however allow providers to surf the market as per the spec of their servers but does not grant the same allowances as colo, in most cases but does relieve the stress of constant hardware updates, replacing failed equipment etc..

Personally I Colo but that’s down to good relationships with owners of a few small to large hardware companies.
 
The biggest pro to dedicated server (for me, atleast) is less hassle and affordability (initially), whereas colocation can have a high initial cost and can cause more hassle.
 
I think for many businesses it's very important to determine how/when to go dedicated, or to colo from dedicated, etc. IMO it's scale that must be considered mostly, but I'd like to hear other's thoughts.
 
We provision a lot of colocation space to clients who had existing servers, racks, switches and so on at their office. Some overgrow their facilities, some lose their lease - the list is endless. Increased bandwidth, redundancy, lower cost and security are the four biggest factors driving these moves.
 
Personally I really prefer the control over the hardware itself of owning our servers. The risk is that we're taking on responsibility for the hardware. To mitigate that to a point, we've chosen 2 data centers that offer pretty personalized service - Virtbiz in Dallas and Tulix in Altanta. I've come to know their senior people and trust them with the hardware. Chris with Virtbiz recently did a server swap during an upgrade, and Jason at Tulix did the drive replacement for me. BUT... worst case scenario both locations are a single hop plane ride with a dozen or more planes going everyday (or 7-9 hour drive if it's really bad).

And depending on the server requirements, it's going to likely be cheaper in the long run to own. The d.c.'s are going to cover their cost and more on the hardware - and rightly so as their putting out the capital and assuming the risk. I'd rather take the one time hit -- and buy wisely. I have seen a few dedicated offers recently that let you "buy" upgrades... that's a cool idea. A one time fee for the hardware and installation isn't nearly as hard to swallow as a every month fee. For example, I'm currently building a dual quad-core with 32GB ECC RAM, and 4x WD RE2 750's connected to a LSI MegaRAID. The difference for colo and picking that box up as a dedicated server means the box's hardware will be paid for in under 6 months (though I worked at getting the deals I did for the hardware).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Supporters

Back
Top