Co-lo v dedicated

corblimey

As far as I understand it, the main difference between dedicated and co-lo is that with co-lo you buy the server yourself (and are usually responsible for installation of the o/s, etc) and ship it to a datacenter. With dedicated, it's one of their servers. Is that right?

Would I have as much access rights to a dedicated server as to a co-lo? For example, if I needed something else installed or the *nix package upgraded or whatever? What about, for example, setting up cron jobs? I'm just a little confused about where dedicated stops being a suitable alternative and co-lo becomes inevitable.

CoNfOuNd

Yes that's correct, although datacenters will have staff who can install an operating system on a co-located server if you need it done, for a fee.

Dedicated is perfect if you are looking for a 'typical' server. If you have any special hardware requirements then the datacenter may not stock the hardware and may recommend that you purchase the server yourself and co-lo it with them.

You would need to speak to the datacenters themselves to see what server management and support they provide. If you aren't comfortable installing and upgrading packages then you would definitely need a server management contract, which would normally be a set price each month or charged by the hour depending upon your needs. As for setting up cron jobs, it's so easy you'd be better learning how to do it than to pay someone else (there are many many online guides).

corblimey

CoNfOuNd wrote: »

As for setting up cron jobs, it's so easy you'd be better learning how to do it than to pay someone else (there are many many online guides).

Well I'm currently installing Ubuntu on a spare machine at home so that I can understand what's involved and get myself set up correctly before trying it for real. But in theory, if I'm paying for a dedicated server, I should expect to have full control over its contents (not hardware per se, but certainly software) and full access to "my" machine? I expect that depending on usage, I may be sharing a dedicated server with other ip's, but I would still expect full control. Is this a bad assumption?

CoNfOuNd

You are mixing up Dedicated Servers with Virtual Private Servers.

Dedicated Servers - the whole server is yours including the hardware and full control for a monthly rental fee. You share with nobody.

Virtual Private Server - it's a super server that is split up between X customers. The resources are split between those customers by the datacenter so each customer has their own partition, and the server uses special software which allows multiple operating systems to run (one on each partition), so in essence, you could be using a VPS and not even know, because it will seem just like a dedicated server. You won't be aware who else is sharing the physical server with you - it will be completely private and each customer is only aware of what is on their own partition and no one elses.

Either way, you will get full root/admin access to your dedicated server or VPS. That's the simpliest way I can explain it right now - but if you've any questions let me know.

steve-hosting36

Most good providers these days will provide a dedicated server on new enterprise server boxes, with full root control, console or KVM access (for out of band management and remote virtual media mounting) and remote reboot port (so you can power cycle the machine if something hangs or goes wrong).

You'll also have 24/7 support with hands and eyes onsite with the kit should you need it, as well as tight SLA's covering hardware failure

cgarvey

corblimey wrote: »

With dedicated, it's one of their servers. Is that right?

Yup. Higher initial costs with Co-lo, but if you write it off over a number of years (and have reliable hardware to last that!), you save on the long term.

corblimey wrote: »

Would I have as much access rights to a dedicated server as to a co-lo?

Yes (after initial install). You won't have the ability to stick in a gig of RAM 3 months down the line (though, the dedicated server provider might offer that service). In software terms, there's no difference.

If it is VPS vs Dedicated you mean, then VPS will have some limitations. Custom kernels, iptables firewalss are just 2 troublesome/impossible things I can think of. However, you can isntall most things, and it's only very specific requirements that wouldn't be met by VPS (assuming the core resources being shared is OK)

steve-hosting36

Just on VPS limitations, it depends on the VPS technology, our cloud platform is built on VMware running on a SAN and Blade grid, so custom kernals, local firewalling and KVMoIP are all possible.