Suggestions for colocation needed

Mon May 23 15:56:14 PDT 2005

I would avoid 200paul. Their security is a joke. You get an HID badge, 
and that's it, you have full access to the
entire building. They don't have a 247 noc, just one security guy.  The 
grounds are also unsecured because they
share a parking lot with a newspaper delivery depot.

They're UPS based.. I can say that in the past 10 years, all but one of 
the 35 datacenter outages I've gone through
have been because of faulty batteries causing cascading failures.

Go and tour their facilities.. You'll have this nagging feeling going 
through your head as you walk around. That
feeling is "Amateur", it describes their operations. They're also a spam 
friendly hosting provider.  Cogent is still
their most popular bw provider, followed by wiltel. One of their 
salespeople told me point blank that most of their
business came from porn and spam.

Beyond that, if you just need a cheap datacenter in SF, and aren't too 
concerned with high reliability (like for
a failover datacenter) you could do a lot worse. They're very cheap, 
have a few good bandwidth providers
in there, etc. I'd consider them if I needed a place to replicate a 
large NAS or something.

Guy B. Purcell wrote:

>
> On May 3, 2005, at 13:17, Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
>
>> My company needs to expand their colocation and I am looking for
>> suggestions where to check. Our requirements are something like
>> this:
>
>
> [...requirements...]
>
> I'm not sure if this site meets all your requirements or not (eg.  
> it's not a "pretty" facility--or at least it wasn't in 2001 when I  
> worked for a company co-located there), but I really liked Exchange  
> Colocation [1].  That company I worked for got in pretty early, back  
> when it looked like AboveNet was going to go under like Exodus had,  
> and I got a good look as this place was building out their  
> infrastructure.  It was very good--clean, tight, redundant.  I don't  
> think you'll find a better choice of network providers, either; this  
> place sites at a crossroads of several fiber runs on the Peninsula.   
> And, at least back then, they were backed by non-tech-sector money  
> (owned by some British shipping company), so they weren't likely to  
> go under in a tech-sector crash.
>
> -Guy
>
> [1] <http://www.e200paul.com/netlist.htm>
>
>