Printable View
I was curious if anyone knew if it would actually be cheaper to purchase a server or two direct from somewhere and have that server sent to the hosting company to setup rather than 'leasing' the server from the host every year.
Basically im thinking a couple of servers of the same specs we have now but still in place at the same host may actually work out more cost effective in the long run, does anyone else currently do anything like this, i think its basically a 'managed' plan?
Regards,
Lee
we have 2 servers here that run back end stuff which is including interoffice stuff and software backups amongst other things. Its not the easiest to run your own server unless you are very tech savvy. We have hired a freelance guy to manage the servers. Our ISP has also complained a few times because we're using a lot of stuff like the bandwidth thingies that you use through internet to run the servers. Its a little bit of a mess. we have a t1 line.
Servers are so cheap anymore unless you have tons of extra time (and the knowledge) it's really not worth it.
its not worth it for two reasons:
- server hardware costs are such a minor part of a hosting package it hardly makes sense to upfront that cost unless you are talking a massive server farm
- more importantly, if you buy your own servers and co-locate, YOU have to support the server which means given a disk failure, getting your server back online could take days or weeks. Even if you have software issues, co-location does not include someone fixing your buggered linux or security installs
I like not having something else I need to learn about, fix, maintain etc etc
Paying for a managed server is sooooo worth the money IMHO