Remix.run Logo
1f60c 12 hours ago

> a $400,000 grant

IDK if they could bag this kind of grant every year, but isn't this the scale where cloud hosting starts to make sense?

0x1ch 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You have two options. Colo if you still want physical access to your devices, or cloud, where you get access to nothing beyond some online portals.

LoganDark 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Colo is when you want to bring your own hardware, not when you want physical access to your devices. Many (most?) colo datacenters are still secure sites that you can't visit.

0x1ch 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every colo I've visited has a system for allowing physical access for our equipment, generally during specific operating hours with secure access card.

calvinmorrison 7 hours ago | parent [-]

secure access cards, IDing, bag check, and a tech following you around. Of course cabinets are all locked up as well.

A lot of these places are like fortresses

kube-system 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've only ever seen that at data centers that offer colo as more of a side service or cater to little guys who are coloing by the rack unit. All of the serious colocation services I've used or quoted from offer 24/7 site access.

Basically anywhere with cage or cabinet colocation is going to have site access, because those delineations only make sense to restrict on-site human access.

jcrawfordor 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be quite honest I've never seen a colo that didn't offer access at all. The cheapest locations may require a prearranged escort because they don't have any way to restrict access on the floors, but by the time you get to 1/4 rack scale you should expect 24/7 access as standard.

firesteelrain 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Same. We would colo and had racks behind chain link fencing that was locked behind cipher locks

olyjohn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think so. I don't think anybody is going to hand off their server and ask someone else to hook it up. Also, you need access so you can troubleshoot hardware issues.

stefan_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So that they can pay 100x more expenses for.. no gain? They would pay an arm just for traffic.

arcfour 7 hours ago | parent [-]

CloudFlare is free/cheap and hey presto, no servers to manage!

herewulf 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And when your Cloudflare site is down, most of the Internet is down too! There's no downside!

encrypted_bird 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Counterpoint: that would require using CloudFlare.

arcfour 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That is, in my opinion, far superior to using a single server ran by "someone".

encrypted_bird 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I guess that is the beauty of opinions: they can be different from person to person. In my case, I would rather avoid CloudFlare if possible.