Ohio Datacenters

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

Does anyone know of any datacenters to ship and put a server close to Dayton Ohio?

[kraze]

I don't personally know of any but I am sure a quick Google search would turn up some. I doubt there are any big brand name centers in Ohio, though :/

[IcEWoLF]

Ohio is not a popular spot for a datacenter...
Generally Chicago is the best solution for Mid-West.

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

I know someone that lives there and wants to find something close as possible, but Chicago would be probably best.

[Edge100x]

Chicago would be much better latency-wise, due to local peerings. I don't recommend colocation, though -- it ends up being pretty expensive in the end, and a lot of hassle.

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

He inquired on installing it at his computer shop, but the internet hookup required would cost $1200 a month.

[kom4462b]

May I inquire as to what exactly it is that is being looked for, I live in Ohio, and have had some of the same thoughts I believe, and had thought originally that Chicago would remain my best hope, but recently, within the last 6 months things have actually turned around here, and now I no longer think Chicago is it, and actually I believe here in Ohio may be it. The costs for me ave dropped dramatically and the speeds up and down and are levels I never thought I would see, but fiber has changed things here. I am not in Dayton, but I am just a little ways North of it up I-75.

KOM4462b

- I am returning to NFO after being gone for a few years, but I ran 6 or 7 servers for several years going back 4 or 5 years ago

[IcEWoLF]

Ohio does not have major network peering like Chicago has. The more, the better..

Level3, Global Crossing, nLayer, Savvis...

[kraze]

With Ohio being fairly close to Chicago and NY the benefits of putting a server there probably wouldn't be as good. I can't imagine a users experience would be much different if at all.

[Edge100x]

IcEWoLF is right. It's all about local peering between ISPs/NSPs. Chicago has a high density of peering, whereas Ohio has a low density. That means that for traffic to reach customers on other networks than the hosting ISP, from Ohio, it will usually have to travel to Chicago or NYC, adding latency. It is better to rent a server in Chicago directly.

[.=QUACK=.Major.Pain]

They have a server that isn't being used, and thought it would be cheaper to have it placed somewhere as opposed to renting.

Found a place in Chicago that offers Colocation:
10Mbps - $39
100Mbps - $59
1 Gbps - $159

* +$25 if they install Windows but I am sure that would be done before shipping.

One of our members works on the servers used by Arma devs themselves so hw knows what is required. He just doesn't know datacenter locations and what's the better areas.

They haven't decided if they are going to go ahead, but were wonder about it all.

[Edge100x]

I do not recommend remote colocation because of its high hidden costs and work. The costs of shipping/installation/hard drive replacements/remote hands add up, it's painful to change providers if one doesn't work out, equipment ages fast and you have to replace it yourself, etc. Colocation mostly makes sense if you are planning to set up a full cabinet of new gear and it's all server-grade equipment that's designed to be remote-managed.

[murphyslaw]

I know this is a somewhat old topic, but I happen to live just outside Dayton Ohio and I have looked for server colocation near me. I know someone signed up with twtelecom down the road and runs a colo service out of their computer shop but its pretty expensive. Datayard/Donet in downtown Dayton has level3, twtelecom, and cogent as their network providers and they have a pretty nice datacenter but they quoted me at $125 a month for a 1u server and 100GB of transfer a month charging an extra $20 for every 100GBs over. In addition my connection gets routed through Chicago so in essence its going 600 miles to go to Chicago and back. I talked with expedient about their datacenter in Columbus because they claimed to have direct peering with Time Warner Cable. They didn't want to give me a firm price, but they said it would be around $190 a month for 10 mpbs on a 100 mbit port billed 95th percentile. My connection was still routed through Chicago on their test IP and I didn't like the fact they were avoiding a lot of my questions so I didn't go with them. There is a datacenter in Cincinnati that offers direct peering with Time Warner Cable among other big network providers, I ping 10ms from Dayton which is pretty good. I went with a host in New York in the end. As far as my colo experience goes for just having one server, it is somewhat pricey if you need remote hands ($175 an hour) and replacement parts but I have yet to be charged by my host for any of the small things they have done for me. I was locked out of the server when I screwed up my network config and they fixed it for me free of charge. They've replaced some hard drives and they didn't charge for it. If you have a higher end server, I think colo is still worth it. Softlayer wants $600 a month for a server similar to mine when I pay $115 a month. Other providers want around $350 a month. The server build cost me around $1500 so $350-$115=235 and $1500/$235= 6.3 So in about 6-7 months the savings of colo will cover the initial cost of the server.