[134906] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: co-location and access to your server
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Wed Jan 12 16:51:35 2011
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:50:49 -0800
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101121642210.10560@murf.icantclick.org>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "david raistrick" <drais@icantclick.org>,
"Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> From: david raistrick=20
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:44 PM
> To: Jeroen van Aart
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: co-location and access to your server
>=20
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
>=20
> > I guess knowing who entered the building by means of a keycard and
> having
> > cameras isn't considered enough to deter potential "evil doers". I
> know it's
> > not enough for places like equinix, but that's of a different
> caliber.
>=20
> Paying for 1u of colo justifys a keycard for you, cameras and keycard
> hardware for the facility? you're paying what, 50-100$ a month,
maybe
> less? you realize that low prices comes at the cost of reduced
> services?
I would say even that hosting other people's hardware on a "one off"
basis isn't even really cost effective. Better, in my opinion, for the
service provider to simply buy a rack from Rackable or another vendor
and rent the servers out to people. At least you are then dealing with
a known entity as far as hardware goes. Housing who knows what gives
you a potential mix of things like front to back, back to front, and
side to side airflow; an assortment of network issues due to an
assortment of NICs in the network; people wanting physical access to
their servers for things like driver replacement, etc.=20
Even having someone willing to allow individuals to house their own
single servers in a rack is amazing. Complaining about the service as
far as access just seems like looking the gift horse in the mouth!
