[thelist] Re: dedicated server in the us

[Kevin Martin]

Quoth the Michael Galvin <mgalvin at sourcevisualthinking.ie>
> Um, this is not an answer to your question, but your post reminded me of
> something I wanted to ask theList for a while.  Apart from time differences*
> and tech support availability, is there any reason why a US company couldn't
> be hosted on a UK server (for example).

Transatlantic pipes do tend to be quite a bit thinner than ones on land;
and even if bandwidth is plentiful, when latency is an issue there is
still speed-of-light lag.  Even eighth-of-a-second delays add up.

But you can have it both ways; e.g. my day job has major points-of-
presence in London, NYC, and Santa Clara (California).  They use a
"Virtual NOC" philosophy so clients get "day-shift" coverage eighteen
hours a day -- and that's not counting the second and third shifts.

And they match Rackspace's "new reduced" pricing for a dedicated 1U Linux
server, by the way. :-)

> Wouldn't it be easier for you if there are problems with the site to have a
> local ISP that will be open during your working hours, not your client's?

Physical access to the hardware is so last-century. :-)

IMHO it makes sense to outsource to a 24x7 staff that can provide "virtual
hands" whenever needed.  Round-the-clock staffing for a small site can
quickly become a nightmare; picking a right-sized ISP means lots of
customers to justify that staffing, and that helps, a lot.