Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
$50/month at 40U rentable is $2000/rack/month if it's full. after paying for 60A of power and 50Mbits/sec of transit and whatever the rack rents for, the provider's gross margin will be between 25% and 50%, out of which they have to pay salaries. as a standalone business this makes no sense, but at scale or as part of another business, $50/month @1U is just about right.
I've only seen a few comments on the business aspect of this, so I'd like to throw my two cents in. Given: at least certain Linux distributions are free to copy Given: the various BSD distributions are all free to copy Given: vmware workstation is a relatively low-cost product Given: Linux and BSD run in virtual machines on Vmware on Linux Question: Why can't a provider sell virtual PC colocation, instead of physical PC colocation? So instead of 40 physical machines per rack, why can't it be 80 or 160 or even more virtual machines, running on 40 physical Linux boxes? I think the economics could shift significantly under those circumstances. For personal colo the virtual CPU would probably be idle at least 99% of the time. My home servers usually are. Which means that when hosting 4 typical virtual machines a real CPU would still be mostly idling. Also a small IDE drive now is about 120 GB. Divide that by 4 and each colo still has 30 GB of disk space, more than enough for most needs. The hardware cost per "machine" certainly goes down, and other than the vmware licenses the OS software is "free", either BSD licensed free or GPL licensed "free". Either is good enough for this purpose. Is some hosting company already doing this?
On Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 02:42:20AM -0800, Bohdan Tashchuk wrote:
Is some hosting company already doing this?
http://www.bytemark-hosting.co.uk/ Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x(01)37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x(01)37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Ops | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 02:42:20AM -0800, Bohdan Tashchuk wrote:
Is some hosting company already doing this?
http://www.bytemark-hosting.co.uk/
Simon
Any which would offer operating systems where the source is not full of four letter words and license being questionable with some bowing to the legal action already? Or is it just fashionable to restrict an operation to Linux? Pete
On Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 01:48:44PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Any which would offer operating systems where the source is not full of four letter words and license being questionable with some bowing to the legal action already? Or is it just fashionable to restrict an operation to Linux?
If someone can point me to Virtual Solaris Machine, then I'd willingly offer that as a service (the colo I help run as a "hobby" is Sun only). The reason people are doing it on Linux is that it's available. (And, in the case of LVM, free) Simon
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Simon Lockhart wrote: : If someone can point me to Virtual Solaris Machine, then I'd willingly offer : that as a service (the colo I help run as a "hobby" is Sun only). : : The reason people are doing it on Linux is that it's available. (And, in the : case of LVM, free) mmm, NetBSD. Runs on all of x86, amd64, and sparc64 hardware, and runs Linux and Solaris binaries (for the appropriate processor type). RAIDframe is free and included in the base system too. 8-) -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>
## On 2004-03-14 11:58 -0000 Simon Lockhart typed: SL> SL> If someone can point me to Virtual Solaris Machine, then I'd willingly offer SL> that as a service (the colo I help run as a "hobby" is Sun only). AFAIK that will be in Solaris 10 - See "N1 Grid Containers" on <http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/10/> You can get a non-supported preview for free (or pay 99$ for one year support) -- HTH, Rafi SL> SL> The reason people are doing it on Linux is that it's available. (And, in the SL> case of LVM, free) SL> SL> Simon SL>
On Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
AFAIK that will be in Solaris 10 - See "N1 Grid Containers" on <http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/10/>
You can get a non-supported preview for free (or pay 99$ for one year support)
Well, it's Zones. I downloaded the latest Solaris Express release last night and got a simple Zones implementation running on a spare box. It certainly looks very interesting. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1628 407720 (x(01)37720) | Si fractum Technology Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1628 407701 (x(01)37701) | non sit, noli BBC Internet Ops | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk | id reficere BBC Technology, Maiden House, Vanwall Road, Maidenhead. SL6 4UB. UK
On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 06:31, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sun Mar 14, 2004 at 02:42:20AM -0800, Bohdan Tashchuk wrote:
Is some hosting company already doing this?
Here to: http://www.interland.com/shared/, and for less than $50 per month. I have had nothing but excellent experience with them. -Jim P.
(Three replies here.) -------- tashchuk@easystreet.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
... Question: Why can't a provider sell virtual PC colocation, instead of physical PC colocation?
Some do. However, without a server that can be impounded and then sold on E-Bay, there's no reason to think that the provider will have less abuse volume from such customers than they would have from SMTP AUTH customers or DSL customers or what-have-you. "Show me the sheet-metal." I've seen vmware, freebsd jails, linux lvm's. Unless the provider asks for a USD$1000 deposit against bad behaviour, refundable with interest after the first year... I don't expect the address space to have a good enough reputation that *I* would want to be in that neighborhood. -------- jimpop@yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch) writes:
Here to: http://www.interland.com/shared/, and for less than $50 per month. I have had nothing but excellent experience with them.
InterLand has essentially got no abuse desk. My complaints to them about their customers mostly go unanswered. Blackholing them here has been my only recourse. Maybe you'd want to live in that kind of neighborhood, but not I. (Tell me an address block and I'll show you my lartomatic records.) -------- jeffm@iglou.com (Jeff McAdams) writes:
I'm sorry, Paul, but the "$50/month 1U colo business" that you keep going on about is, at best, a niche market. It is not, and will not be, a substitute for DSL/Cable.
I'm not presenting it as a substitute for DSL/Cable. I'm sure that many thousands of BSD-aware or Linux-aware power users will continue to love the price-performance ratio of DSL/Cable a lot more than they loved their modems. However, I'm calling a spade a spade -- DSL/Cable is usually just a replacement for a modem, and you'd better plan on having "someplace real" on the other side of that "modem" to have as your full time "living space".
At best, it will be in addition to DSL/Cable, which means an extra expense for customers, which means that it will never be more than a niche.
I think we're in a same-planet-different-worlds scenario here. Because less than 1% of the internet population is capable of administering their own 1U (or virtual machine or whatever) running BSD or Linux, this whole thing is already a niche, irrespective of costs. (I'd've thought that was obvious.)
Other's have said, and they are absolutely right, that there is no real technical difference between a DSL line with a static IP, and a colo box.
And others were wrong, when they said that. See George Herbert's excellent "Message-Id: <200403140810.i2E8A1N25406@gw.retro.com>" for a fine rebuttal.
There are ISPs out there that are providing clueful DSL service, including allowing servers on it, with aggressive abuse response, at competitive price points. It can be, and is being, done. Its rare, yes, but it can be found.
In a minority of markets, that's true, and I hope that more such appear.
So, the argument that we need to all start selling "$50/month 1U colo boxes" because responsible DSL service can't be done is bogus.
One power user acting alone can sign up for a $50/month 1U personal colo. Only a well backed company can solve the "no decent DSL in Sacramento" problem. (And such a company would most likely be sucked into the "race to the bottom" by price-competition, so it's a risk at best unless you're first in a market that's unattractive to larger players.)
it would be marketing suicide to offer a different dsl-dhcp ip address to people willing to pay enough to budget for an abuse desk.
You're wrong here. It can be done, and it can be done profitably.
Looks like you didn't read what you quoted. I know it can be done profitably but I also know that offering two price-levels of DSL, one with an abuse desk capable of calling you and telling you your XP box has been rooted and talking you through Windows Update; the other with a tailgate warranty -- this would be "marketing suicide" since the irresponsibility of the latter would become intolerable if it were thusly highlighted. -- Paul Vixie
Paul Vixie wrote:
it would be marketing suicide to offer a different dsl-dhcp ip address to people willing to pay enough to budget for an abuse desk.
You're wrong here. It can be done, and it can be done profitably.
Looks like you didn't read what you quoted. I know it can be done profitably but I also know that offering two price-levels of DSL, one with an abuse desk capable of calling you and telling you your XP box has been rooted and talking you through Windows Update; the other with a tailgate warranty -- this would be "marketing suicide" since the irresponsibility of the latter would become intolerable if it were thusly highlighted.
No, you're presenting a false dichotomy. A provider can provide a first-rate abuse desk, and still be price competitive. It can be done. It requires a fair amount of clue level in the ISP, but it most definitely can be done. -- Jeff McAdams "He who laughs last, thinks slowest." -- anonymous
jeffm@iglou.com (Jeff McAdams) writes:
No, you're presenting a false dichotomy. A provider can provide a first-rate abuse desk, and still be price competitive. It can be done. It requires a fair amount of clue level in the ISP, but it most definitely can be done.
at scale, with things as they now are, i simply don't believe this. with a 10000:1 ratio (daily customers to onduty clues), it is never going to be possible to contact every customer out of band (by phone, that is) when they need to be told how to de-virus their win/xp box. not for $30/month. you can fiddle with the ratio -- 800:1 may work -- and you might be able to hire clues very cheaply for a while -- but not at scale. i'd love to be proved wrong on this point. -- Paul Vixie
Paul Vixie wrote:
at scale, with things as they now are, i simply don't believe this. with a 10000:1 ratio (daily customers to onduty clues), it is never going to be possible to contact every customer out of band (by phone, that is) when they need to be told how to de-virus their win/xp box. not for $30/month. you can fiddle with the ratio -- 800:1 may work -- and you might be able to hire clues very cheaply for a while -- but not at scale.
i'd love to be proved wrong on this point.
I see this as a two different processes. There are definetly some individuals who have no help whatsoever with their computers and need the abuse/helpdesk to walk them through the disinfecting process. However in my experience these are only a small fraction of the population with infected machines. It really solves 90%+ of the problem by just getting the message to the individual that they have a problem and they´ll find somebody to fix it for them. Pete
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
I see this as a two different processes. There are definetly some individuals who have no help whatsoever with their computers and need the abuse/helpdesk to walk them through the disinfecting process.
Gartner estimates the total cost of ownership of a PC at $450/month. If someone is paying $50/month, I wonder where the other $400 goes? Is it marketing suicide in other industries have premium customer programs. Pay more or have a better credit rating, and you get a platinum credit card. Fly more or pay more and you get to sit in first class and board the plan first. Why not have special IP addresses reserved for the Internet "elite?" ISPs are desperately looking for new revenue streams. Would you pay an extra $50/month for "platinum-level" Internet address? ARIN could charge extra to certify those ISPs receiving platinum Internet addresses. Mass mailers already pay companies like Habeas and IronPort for "bonded" e-mail. Suppose we create Internet++ using 126/8 as the starting IP address block. Only ISPs agreeing to the good code of conduct could use 126/8 addresses assigned independently of any other IP addresses in use. ISPs might reserve 126/8 addresses to only a few of their most secure servers, and a few very trusted customers. If it was successfull, IANA could extend the range to 125/8, 124/8 and so on
However in my experience these are only a small fraction of the population with infected machines. It really solves 90%+ of the problem by just getting the message to the individual that they have a problem and they´ll find somebody to fix it for them.
Doubtful. If you look at large samples, e.g. 10,000 infected computers, the repair rate is essentially identical between a group told their computers are infected and a group which wasn't told. Perhaps more scary, the rate of repair after being notified doesn't change whether the group are self-described "computer experts" or "general users." I expect every NANOG conference from now on will be filled with announcements asking people to please fix their computers because worms are killing the network. NANOG has less than 500 attendees, yet has about the same number as infected computers as any other ad-hoc network population.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
Some do. However, without a server that can be impounded and then sold on E-Bay, there's no reason to think that the provider will have less abuse volume from such customers than they would have from SMTP AUTH customers or DSL customers or what-have-you. "Show me the sheet-metal." I've seen vmware, freebsd jails, linux lvm's. Unless the provider asks for a USD$1000 deposit against bad behaviour, refundable with interest after the first year... I don't expect the address space to have a good enough reputation that *I* would want to be in that neighborhood.
The residual value of sheet-metal continues to drop :-) Its not unusual for the cost of disposing of the equipment to be more than the unpaid bills. People who buy cheap, personal colo seem to be equally cheap when it comes to equipment they put in the colo. That assumes the equipment doesn't have other UCC liens on it already. Dell Leasing or Sun Leasing don't care if you use their equipment for abuse. They still expect their money or the equipment back. Many colo providers could tell you stories about problem customers that vanish without a trace. The "collateral value" of the equipment isn't much.
One power user acting alone can sign up for a $50/month 1U personal colo.
But first, a well backed company builds the colo, buys the upstream bandwidth, obtain independent ARIN addresses and highly paid support folks to support a single power user paying $50/month. Yep, a race to the bottom exists in the colo space too.
Only a well backed company can solve the "no decent DSL in Sacramento" problem. (And such a company would most likely be sucked into the "race to the bottom" by price-competition, so it's a risk at best unless you're first in a market that's unattractive to larger players.)
I assume you are aware that DSL transport is available without Internet access. Ghetto colo providers could terminate DSL transport on their network. Then you would have an IP address of the Ghetto colo provider. You can also terminate DSL transport on your company network. Heck you don't even need to send IP across DSL, you can use it for IPX, Appletak, DECNET, or many other packet protocols. It doesn't sound like colo or a replacement for your cable modem or DSL line would actually meet all your requirements. What you seem to be asking for is how can an individual obtain independent IP address space which various block lists won't block for $50/month. And once you find such a thing, how to prevent "bad people" from taking advantage for your discovery.
... What you seem to be asking for is how can an individual obtain independent IP address space which various block lists won't block for $50/month.
s/which various block lists won't block /whose reputation can be reasonably defended /
... And once you find such a thing, how to prevent "bad people" from taking advantage for your discovery.
see above. -- Paul Vixie
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Bohdan Tashchuk wrote:
Question: Why can't a provider sell virtual PC colocation, instead of physical PC colocation?
Several do. We nearly bought a failing one that was doing alot of this with a commercial Linux virtualization product.
So instead of 40 physical machines per rack, why can't it be 80 or 160 or even more virtual machines, running on 40 physical Linux boxes? I think the economics could shift significantly under those circumstances.
During the short time we managed their network and systems, I had to poke around on a couple of the virtual machines to fix customer issues. I don't remember how many virtual machines they ran per physical machine, but IIRC, they were all P4's with several GB of RAM. Each customer got root and their own IPs on what appeared to them to be a dedicated server. IIRC, Paul was suggesting part of the value in the $50/month colo deal was that customers were motivated to be good else you keep their server or ebay it. You lose that with the virtual private server model...but does anyone actually have in their contract/AUP that AUP violators will forfeit their hardware? We've kicked some spammer colo customers where I'd love to have had such a clause. I only know of one case where we did that...and it was for non-payment. The customer's hardware was worth less than their balance, so they chose to simply write us off. Being located in another country, it wasn't worth the effort to try extracting $ from them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
participants (10)
-
Bohdan Tashchuk -
Jeff McAdams -
Jim Popovitch -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
Paul Vixie -
Petri Helenius -
Rafi Sadowsky -
Sean Donelan -
Simon Lockhart -
Todd Vierling