Hosting question - how much for 30 servers and 100 mbit in NL?
 

I am asking this for a friend, i have the suspicion that right now he might be paying far too much.

so if someone could please get me a quote for:

- location Netherlands cause mostly Euro members

- 30 managed servers (rented)

- 100 mbit dedicated bandwidth

i don't need the most detailed quote - just roughly the range we're talking about

if you don't want to post here please email to sales at amazingcontent . com - i will forward him your prices and if he's interested you can work out the details

thanks!

What type of servers chief? Dual/Quad Core? RAM? HD/Storage? RAID?

Fully managed, or unmanaged?

Too vague for a realistic quote.

:2 cents:

any particular reason why they have 30 machines? The price can range anywhere from 100/machine to 800/Machine, specs/age of equipment all play factors.

Hit up Gerard at webair ;-)

I am forwarding the thread to two of my contacts.

We have recently completed the build of our own datacenter in Amsterdam NL so this should be easy.
We don't resell, own network, own dc, own servers, own 24/7 staff
Left you a message on ICQ, let's chat :thumbsup

i wrote managed...

but unmanaged as alternative would work too - just to compare


i assume it has been growing over the years and with new machines it could also run on less. it's basically for a big paysite incl. video streaming and download


well, the point is that since it's not for me i can't give any details. i don't know them. and i also dont want to negotiate with 20 companies now ;)

i just want to know if we are talking in the range of $2000, $5000, $10000 or $20000 per month.

and if my friend likes the number he will be in touch to discuss details

$10000 nor $20000 won't be the case, especially with only 100 mbit.
However the specs of the servers can make the difference between $2000 or $5000.

With generic servers this should be fairly cheap, if your friend needs dual quad cores with 32 Gb memory and several 15K SAS disks on-board it will obviously be more expensive

Essentially, depending on the server (Dual or Quad) with FULL management you could be looking at anywhere from $100-350.00 each x 30. Which is why I said anyone would need more details to get your the "ball park".

You can get unmanaged Dual Cores for $99-150.00 in the NL as an example.

Full management? Depending on the company $100-150.00 added per server.

Need a Quad? Add $50-100.00. More RAM? Keep going.

You catch the drift chief....

We offer those a little cheaper, especially if you talk 30 servers it will be a lot cheaper :thumbsup

i totally get your points, i am only that vague since i dont know his setup in detail.

but - lets say 30 x $250 for a midsize machine managed = $7500

and 100 mbit should be nowadays something llike $200 - maybe max $500 if it's high quality bandwidth, right?

since he mentioned to me "guaranteed" bandwidth - does that make a difference? compared to shared? or isnt everything shared anyways?

I would say 250 - 325 would be average for a lower end managed box. for 30 machines I would hope they would be giving away the 100Mbps.

Quality of support > Quantity/lower pricing

That sounds to me like he is asking for 'dedicated' 100MBit connection (based on your verbiage) versus a shared or unmetered bandwidth pipe. That also will have an impact on the price if he wants a dedicated bandwidth commitment. In short, that is the different between them "sharing" bandwidth (i.e. VLAN) or having a solid pipe.

Think of it like DSL versus cable home connection. Cable internet is on a shared loop that runs through your neighborhood. Meaning your bandwidth speeds can go up and down depending on the usage of the loop (i.e. your neighborhood). While DSL is a dedicated line to your house and should remain a constant speed at all times.

:2 cents:

i understand the principle, my question was about the difference in pricing

Im willing to bet he doesn't need anywhere near 30 servers

i am with you on this one...

It would be hard to nail down. THAT... will vary by carrier and their bandwidth contracts.

If he is looking for dedicated pipes (1 to 1 ratio) I would recommend he go to one of the bigger providers serving the NL as they would already have some nice bandwidth available via their commitments.

Many (not all) web hosting companies operate on the shared/VLAN principle. As it's rare that most customers need the 1 to 1 (1 server with 100MBit) ratio and a dedicated pipe when it comes to bandwidth. Most customers want the ability to SPIKE up to a certain level of bandwidth and it not effect performance. They are not chugging along all day at 100MBit.

:2 cents:

hence the questions about the server specs ;-)
I was already thinking we could probably consolidate quite some servers into fewer high spec servers

Agreed.

He probably could consolidate his hardware into more robust machine(s) in regards to processing, memory, and storage. However, there are a number of these guys floating around that prefer doing these lower end box "clusters" for lack of better word. I suppose it all depends on what he is up to.

He really should find a solid company who is needs based, reviews his actual uses, and provides a solid long term solution. Which sounds like it could be a custom hardware set up. While it can be a hassle and ties you into one carrier (as you can't easily hop around). It can be advantageous in both performance, management, and cost cutting.

:2 cents:

We either sell unmetered pipes where you have the capacity guaranteed or a burstable plan where you are on a GigE uplink so you can burst. I think every ISP keeps at least 50% of their total capacity free for bursting, I know we do.

Sharing bandwidth is not so common anymore as it used to be. With the availability of 10GE capacity is not really an issue anymore these days.

i sent him this thread - so thanks to everyone for the discussion so far :)

I beg to differ. Especially in your assertion that "every ISP" does anything.

While it may be a case with your company, I can assure you that the VLAN/shared bandwidth is still the norm around many of the most popular, or recognized, U.S. based ISP's. Many on WHT actually have talked about this in regards to how they are getting their bandwidth prices down so low on some of their "offers" to remain competitive.

Do you realistically believe that someone would get a Dual or Quad Core, fully managed, with a dedicated 100MBit in bandwidth for $100-200.00 like some of these companies advertise? Not a chance.

:2 cents:

Thanks for the heads up, looks like Leon is on fire today and is already on the job :thumbsup

I never said $100 for a server and 100M, I only said that if we sell like 30 servers I have no problem with throwing in 100M of bandwidth for free as the cost of the bandwidth is negligible.

But I agree, while the mainstream is mostly competing on price we are often asked for quality in this industry over price. I don't see myself selling 100TB servers for 150 bucks anytime soon ;)

True dat top notch.
:thumbsup

Prolly around $46 a month at todays prices

Sent you an email, let me know. We would be happy to discuss this with him and put together a package that meets his needs for today and the future.

Thanks

thanks :thumbsup

i have forwarded him your email :)

Good deal I was going to say make sure to hit the NatNet guy's up.

MaDalton

Id be happy to help your friend out with our Data Center in Amsterdam. Contact me and I will get something going for you.

Thanks

the whole thing doesn't add up, paysite network running on 30 servers and only 100mbit? someone is really incompetent or he is not really running a paysite with those servers like you are saying...

i am wondering about that as well

I didn't see any mentioning of a paysite? Based on the specs above I am pretty sure it is not an average paysite, if a paysite at all

If he has 30 low to mid range servers he's wasting money guaranteed. The bottleneck is the hard drives. In most cases, even a single core CPU spends 98% of it's time sitting there waiting for the drives. In addition, at any given moment he probably has 20 servers doing virtually nothing whole others agree heavily loaded at the moment.

For Clonebox, we use 3U servers with 16 drives each and a pair of quad core processors. One of those would probably replace 10 of the servers he's using, while consuming less than a third of the space and power. He could run three of those for about a grand. If he fixed the one silly bug that's causing the extra load, a pair of such servers would probably be fine.

thank you - i think so far this was already eye opening. i'll leave the rest to him :)

SSD for the win :thumbsup

contact Leon Adulteu host, he is solid!