[Domains] Just to confirm?

Conrad11 · 15 Jun 2006 at 19:43

Hi there,

I remember reading on the forums here that having a Domain registered with a US company is no worse than registering a domain with an english company, and its cheaper.

What matters is where the hosting.

Is that correct?

Thanks for any responses.

- Conrad11

iCraig · 15 Jun 2006 at 20:21

If you're after a dedicated server to host some websites of yours, it definately needs to be in your country IMO. Because there is always the chance you will have to visit the server on-site at some point.

If you're just after a standard cheap host, I think it would be a lot easier to liase with a company in the same time-zone as you etc.

Domains no, I don't think it matters. We have a fair few domains with JOKER, and they are based in Switzerland.. and we have no issues with the location.

Beansprout · 15 Jun 2006 at 20:26

Conrad11 said:
Is that correct?

Spot on

toosepin · 19 Jun 2006 at 21:48

It really depends on your requirments. I've found that having my site hosted in LA (US) is no more harmful than hosting them with a company over here.

However, I mostly use my hosting for simple files/applications - nothing that would require a better ping.

Al Vallario · 19 Jun 2006 at 21:57

iCraig said:
If you're after a dedicated server to host some websites of yours, it definately needs to be in your country IMO. Because there is always the chance you will have to visit the server on-site at some point.

I've never heard of a dedicated server provider which allows people to visit the data center and work on their servers. Maybe I don't get out enough! The only reason I could see for locating a server within reaching distance is if you're supplying the hardware, and even then it's possible to ship hardware overseas and have the data center/colo provider switch out parts if needed.

You should have no problems with domains whatsoever. I'd even go as far as saying the same for your average shared hosting service; I don't think you'll get many people nowadays saying "argh, this website is taking so long to load. It must be hosted the other side of the world!"

phykell · 19 Jun 2006 at 22:06

It's only usually your own "co-located" server you'd ever "visit". In fact I'm visiting an errant server tomorrow morning. We rebooted it and it never came back up :/ Unfortunately, the motherboard management controller is unresponsive and worse still, entry to the data centre is £100/hour :eek:

iCraig · 19 Jun 2006 at 22:15

Al Vallario said:
I've never heard of a dedicated server provider which allows people to visit the data center and work on their servers. Maybe I don't get out enough! The only reason I could see for locating a server within reaching distance is if you're supplying the hardware, and even then it's possible to ship hardware overseas and have the data center/colo provider switch out parts if needed.

You're given a kind of alcove, with your server in and a few wires basically. That server is your responsibility. Most problems can be fixed remotely, but sometimes it requires an on site visit.

Beansprout · 19 Jun 2006 at 22:39

phykell said:
It's only usually your own "co-located" server you'd ever "visit". In fact I'm visiting an errant server tomorrow morning. We rebooted it and it never came back up :/ Unfortunately, the motherboard management controller is unresponsive and worse still, entry to the data centre is £100/hour

Just entry is £100/hr :eek:

Conrad11 · 19 Jun 2006 at 22:50

Lol.....i be like, when they are checking all the paper work....hurry the **** up, this is costing me a ******* tonne an hour.....

£100/hour is a bit ott isnt it?

Adz · 19 Jun 2006 at 23:12

Beansprout said:
Just entry is £100/hr

That's quite reasonable if the server is in a shared rack and access has to be supervised. We charge £50/hour + VAT. Of course full rack clients have unattended access and don't pay.

phykell · 19 Jun 2006 at 23:38

It's an underground bunker and visits must be attended by staff. As for more typical data centres, you can usually get a quarter cabinet (10u) with free access.

Augmented · 20 Jun 2006 at 00:34

Seriously, £100/hr or £50/hr for a glorified babysitter is a joke. I can't really figure out what service a supervisor is providing to warrant that cost? I would have thought that all providers have people onsite - so it can't be 'call-out charge'.

Though, having said that, if I was employed to stand around for an hour in the cold, noisy and incredibly dull places that datacentres are, then I'd probably be charging the same

.

Adz · 20 Jun 2006 at 00:47

Augmented said:
Seriously, £100/hr or £50/hr for a glorified babysitter is a joke. I can't really figure out what service a supervisor is providing to warrant that cost? I would have thought that all providers have people onsite - so it can't be 'call-out charge'.

Though, having said that, if I was employed to stand around for an hour in the cold, noisy and incredibly dull places that datacentres are, then I'd probably be charging the same .

Most UK providers use one of the various carrier neutral facilities in London and do not have staff on site 24x7. London wages are very high as I'm sure you know and that 'babysitter' needs to be technically skilled enough to fix anything that the visitor breaks (ie. disconnecting another server's power cable by mistake, their faulty PSU tripping one of the breakers, etc) or preferably preventing it happening at all therefore they can command a reasonable salary.

When the client is only paying £50/month for basic co-lo, this service is not included in the price and is charged for separately. Alternatively clients can choose to pay £50/hour for the advanced remote hands service with which we'll do the work for them as it would be the same people carrying it out.

Sorry for the OT post but I felt I had to defend my industry

.