OSPF and BMG Usage in Networking
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I think one thing that affects at least some SMBs that I know is the availability of only one internet provider. Around here if you aren't in the city or suburban area, you may only have one option. If you have a hosted database or storage of some type (not email type services) and you lose internet, you can't access anything until it's up. Email type services are different obviously because if you don't have internet, you can't send emails no matter what, I'm just talking data.
Remember the discussion here, though, is about hosting externally facing applications, not ones used in house. So the lack of redundant ISPs would basically guarantee that hosted in a datacenter is the only rational option for those companies rather than making it less likely.
I'll go sit in the corner, somehow I missed that
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
I think one thing that affects at least some SMBs that I know is the availability of only one internet provider. Around here if you aren't in the city or suburban area, you may only have one option. If you have a hosted database or storage of some type (not email type services) and you lose internet, you can't access anything until it's up. Email type services are different obviously because if you don't have internet, you can't send emails no matter what, I'm just talking data.
Remember the discussion here, though, is about hosting externally facing applications, not ones used in house. So the lack of redundant ISPs would basically guarantee that hosted in a datacenter is the only rational option for those companies rather than making it less likely.
I'll go sit in the corner, somehow I missed that
It wasn't in the OP but where the discussion went. I totally get why people do in house services for internal consumption in house when there are limited Internet options. That makes total sense. The datacenter discussion that came in here, though, was around a need for hosting services to the outside.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's truly inconceivable to me that that it would be possible to host a server in a DC less than you can in house. Of course this makes a few assumptions.
- in-house I don't pay a fee for the server location
- I don't need specialized heating/cooling
- Not concerned with redundant ISP links
- Not concerned with generator backup power
etc
Do I need to pull out the old Out of the Closet and into the datacenter document? You ain't doing it right in the closet.
Yeah, if you skimp on most things and ignore everything, odds are it's gonna be "cheaper" to host inhouse. Most of the time if you get more than two "servers", using a cloud based box instead would come out cheaper in the long run.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@Dashrender said:
It's truly inconceivable to me that that it would be possible to host a server in a DC less than you can in house. Of course this makes a few assumptions.
- in-house I don't pay a fee for the server location
- I don't need specialized heating/cooling
- Not concerned with redundant ISP links
- Not concerned with generator backup power
etc
Do I need to pull out the old Out of the Closet and into the datacenter document? You ain't doing it right in the closet.
Yeah, if you skimp on most things and ignore everything, odds are it's gonna be "cheaper" to host inhouse. Most of the time if you get more than two "servers", using a cloud based box instead would come out cheaper in the long run.
When it comes to hosting a critical service that you are providing to the rest of the internet, I completely agree. But when you bring up internal things like @johnhooks did, it's time to consider more items - but yeah, even then it can totally be worth hosting everything in a DC.
