Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am working on a project that will require for us to upload huge HD video files to a server. For simplicity, I was considering Managed Hosting at Rackspace with Cloud Files. However, the main work flow bottle neck would be the upload times. Our first batch of video is 30GBs, and with a single typical current uplink connection of 0.4MB/s that would take more than 20hours!. In other words, not efficient, not scalable. So I am considering co-locating on a nearby Datacenter (Peer1, Vancouver). The main advantage is that to upload huge files, I simply would drive to the datacenter and dump the video directly to the server. The problem is that I have never done co-location, I would need to buy the server, configure it, etc, etc. It seems like a lot of work and way more expensive.

What would you recommend? What are the pros and cons of managed hosting and co-location in your opinion?

share|improve this question

migrated from stackoverflow.com Dec 24 '09 at 19:59

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

4 Answers 4

If you're going to be consistently uploading HD video from your job site, you should probably buy a bigger pipe.

Incidentally, Rackspace takes courier/mail delivery all the time of USB harddrives, DVDs, etc, with client data on them. That may be an easier way to transfer the data.

share|improve this answer

Another factor might be bandwidth usage costs.

If Rackspace charges for exceeding a monthly bandwidth allotment you might find unpleasant surprises on your bill after a couple large uploads. Of course you might run into the same problem uploading data to a remote colocation center, but since you're willing to copy your data directly to your server the savings might help justify the colo.

We're using a nearby colo and copy about 200+GB/month directly to our servers there. Works great; we get fast transfers (just plug in the portable drive, start the copy and leave) without the bandwidth costs.

share|improve this answer

Here is a good blog post from Stackoverflow's blog about their situation. I personally use co-location. I don't like the thought of not owning the hardware. By the time it is over, you've paid for that hardware several times over.

But you do take on the responsibility of keeping the hardware up and running, which with modern machines isn't too difficult.

With a Managed Service, you should check to see if you mailed them a thumb-drive, or usb hard-drive if they would connect it up to the machine for you and ship it back to you (all at your expense of course.)

Defiantly pro's and con's to each. If money isn't an issue, Managed might be better. But if you are watching your penny's (and who isn't). Then you would probably bet better off with a low end Dell, HP, Lenevo or even Sun or Apple server. (Sun and Apple are very expensive, but some of the highest quality I think you can get; HP and Lenevo being next in line)

share|improve this answer

If you can afford Rackspace, can't you afford a slightly bigger upstream pipe to upload to it?

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.