|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 75 of 184:
| 
Aug 7 01:36 UTC 2003 |
Tell you what - I'm not going to take up this man's
time with lots of "what if's". When we know what
we need then it will be appropriate to go back
as for more numbers.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 76 of 184:
|
Aug 7 04:51 UTC 2003 |
I can promise you that Arbornet isn't paying anywhere near that.
|
scg
|
|
response 77 of 184:
|
Aug 7 07:09 UTC 2003 |
I haven't looked at colo pricing all that much recently, but that rate for
rack space sounds generally out of line with the rest of the industry,
especially if there's nothing special (like an exchange point switch) in the
space.
|
mary
|
|
response 78 of 184:
|
Aug 7 12:22 UTC 2003 |
There is a lot of service that comes bundled with OTC, service we don't
need. Tech support on beepers 24/7, remote notification a server is down
within 5 minutes of the crash, redundancy for everything but the oxygen in
the room, and the list goes on. If you were making money from a business
that simply couldn't be down, this would be what you'd need.
But that's not Grex.
|
scg
|
|
response 79 of 184:
|
Aug 8 06:36 UTC 2003 |
Yes, and those are all part of just about any standard colo deal (other than
having to wake up a tech support person with a beeper -- most places I've
dealt with will have somebody on site answer the phone), which doesn't make
the pricing any more reasonable.
|
cross
|
|
response 80 of 184:
|
Aug 8 16:03 UTC 2003 |
I'm a little distressed that people aren't willing to talk to these guys
anymore, when it seems we went and asked them all the wrong questions the
first time around: 1U was clearly too little space, a full half a rack
was clearly too much. Why not go for a nice middle ground; ask about 8U
of space?
|
carson
|
|
response 81 of 184:
|
Aug 8 16:19 UTC 2003 |
(I don't think it's so much that no one's willing to talk to them anymore
as it is that no one wants to talk to them again without having more
specifics in hand.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 82 of 184:
|
Aug 8 16:34 UTC 2003 |
Right. There are only so many times you can jerk someone around before they
write you off as a waste of time.
We _should_ see if there are any other co-location options in the local area,
and then ask them the questions we asked OTC.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 83 of 184:
|
Aug 8 17:01 UTC 2003 |
A web search turned up two possibilities:
Chain Communications
3915 Research Park Drive, Suite A5
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
734-260-1979
800-753-2003
and
Able Colocation
888-740-8326
which is located in Flint, Michigan.
Their prices look reasonable, though:
To colocate your web server in our Michigan Data Center, the
fees are only $300 per month. There is a one-time setup fee of
$250. The monthly fee covers data transfer up to 20 GB per month.
Also, they price by server, not size. See
http://www.ablecolocation.com/colocation_services.html
And, of course, there is Msen:
http://www.msen.com/g/server_colocation.html
|
other
|
|
response 84 of 184:
|
Aug 8 18:04 UTC 2003 |
Since we're not strictly a web server, they might have quibbles...
|
gull
|
|
response 85 of 184:
|
Aug 8 20:07 UTC 2003 |
Flint would certainly mean changing our phone number, and would cause
obvious problems for Grex staff when they needed to work on the machine.
|
mary
|
|
response 86 of 184:
|
Aug 9 01:04 UTC 2003 |
The way I left it with OTC is that I would get back
with them as soon as we know exactly what we'll need.
I think that sounds fair. We're the ones who need
to do the work and come up with numbers.
I'd also like to see what ICnet could do for us.
I'm planning to give them a call sometime next
week, unless someone else would rather.
|
richard
|
|
response 87 of 184:
|
Aug 11 22:27 UTC 2003 |
why should grex consider moving until the lease is up and it absolutely has
to? grex has always had its own residence, is it going to become suddenly
exhorbitantly more expensive to keep things the way they are? the money saved
by co-locating would be worth upsetting grex's traditional living
arrangements?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 88 of 184:
|
Aug 11 22:34 UTC 2003 |
We are considering it now to give us time to decide before the lease is up.
|
mary
|
|
response 89 of 184:
|
Aug 11 23:09 UTC 2003 |
Richard, grab a paper bag. Hold it over your mouth.
Breathe slowly.
That's better. ;-)
|
richard
|
|
response 90 of 184:
|
Aug 11 23:29 UTC 2003 |
what I meant was, shouldn't renewing the lease still be the first option? you
can "overconsider" outside options so much that you end up making those
options the first choice simply due to the degree of thought you give to them.
I mean if the lease can be renewed at or close to current terms, why bother
moving? just because co-locating is suddenly a hot idea to save money?
|
cross
|
|
response 91 of 184:
|
Aug 11 23:48 UTC 2003 |
Colocation gives considerable benefits over life in Grex's current home.
Not the least of which are some things called air conditioning and
environmental conditioning, which will let the computers and their
peripherals live longer, healthier lives. Another is (hopefully) better
network service. The downsides are cost, accessability, lack of a place
to store kindling, and maybe a little fear about physical security.
Security in the more general sense also goes both ways, by the way:
some colocation facilities might not be terribly thrilled with housing
a system that gives access to anyone.
I think that the situation now is pretty much universally thought of
as less than ideal. In particular, the (physical) environment in the
pumpkin sucks, as far as I can tell, with no easy way to fix it.
|
carson
|
|
response 92 of 184:
|
Aug 12 02:41 UTC 2003 |
(on the plus side, the Pumpkin is awfully photogenic.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 93 of 184:
|
Aug 12 03:12 UTC 2003 |
Richard, the hope is that we can get a better environment and a faster network
connection for less, or at least close to the same, money. If we can't, we
can't and so won't make a change. (Well, we _probably_ won't make a change.
It really depends on what we can get for what we are willing to pay.)
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 184:
|
Aug 12 21:33 UTC 2003 |
it makes sense to consider it I guess, I was just thinking of what I've
read of mnet's colocating experiences. Such as mnet co-locating out at
wwnet and being seriously attacked, and the box being so far away that
it was like days before anybody could get out there to check the box
and realize the severity of the situation.
if co-location is desireable, would it be preferable to co-locate in
some member's home, as opposed to in the business location of some
third party who may have grex's best interests in mind? Surely grex
could consider a co-locate in the basement or storage room of
somebody's private residence who is already wired and such if it comes
to that right?
|
gull
|
|
response 95 of 184:
|
Aug 13 00:01 UTC 2003 |
I think co-locating in someone's home is a lot more likely to lead to
unfortunate situations, really.
|
russ
|
|
response 96 of 184:
|
Aug 13 02:13 UTC 2003 |
Locating in a member's house is undesirable for a number of
reasons, which Richard could have listed easily if he'd tried.
I guess you don't have to go all the way to Cambridge to
find someone totally unencumbered by the thought process!
|
aruba
|
|
response 97 of 184:
|
Aug 23 15:56 UTC 2003 |
Re #91: Dan, I, for one, don't think the physical environment in the Pumpkin
is a big problem. I wish we didn't have so much junk that costs us tax
money every year, but that's also not a huge deal, and is really a separate
issue.
As far as extending the life of Grex's machines - Our current machine has
operated very happily in the Pumpkin for 6 years. I fervently hope that in
the future we don't wait that long before upgrading our hardware. So I
don't think longevity is a good argument for colocation, either.
Saving on insurance, *is*, however. Our premium just went up another $50
for next year, to $525. That's more than our average income in a month, and
more than half of what we're paying in rent.
|
mary
|
|
response 98 of 184:
|
Sep 18 20:18 UTC 2003 |
I spoke with Mr. Bill Lockwood today, from ICNet. Here is
the lowdown on what they can offer us.
1. They are located in downtown Ann Arbor.
2. 24/7 access is not a problem. We'd have access with an
electronic key. I'm going to ask him next time we speak
if our equipment is secure to only us.
3. They could string telephone access to our machine but
there would be a one time charge for the hookup and
for monthly service. Because of the location we'd
probably be able to keep our 761-3000 number. It's
possible would could buy our lines from ICnet's pool
and get a better price than going directly to SBC or
another provider.
4. We wouldn't need any liability insurance. If we wanted
to purchase loss coverage for our equipment that would
be our choice. Their policy wouldn't cover our loss.
5. They provide backup power and power conditioning. He
said that during the big blackout of last month their
service was up the entire time.
6. We'd sign a 36 month contract.
For $219 / month
* 4 u of space
* 8 IP addresses (5 available for use)
* 512K bandwidth
For $299 / month we'd upgrade to 768K.
Anyhow, here is their web site:
http://www.ic.net/newsales/ICMT.html
Is this something we should consider?
|
cross
|
|
response 99 of 184:
|
Sep 18 23:20 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, it sounds like a pretty good deal. We'd need to factor in getting
a rackmountable case for nextgrex, though.
|
