Robert Gormley wrote: > Tim Burgan wrote: > >> What's the difference between: >> >> a) RENTING dedicated server hosting, and >> b) OWNING the server and having it stored/connected at some place. >> >> What are the advantages/disadvantages to both of these? >> >> > If you can afford to - go option (b). Essentially with option (a) > you're paying a very large premium for your hoster purchasing your > server - which of course they get to keep when you leave their service. > > Obviously with (b) you need to decide what level of management you > want/need, but pure colocation is the better option. > I'll agree to some extent... but at the same time, a straight co-lo can be a huge nightmare if you don't have tech people. a lot of places offer "remote hands" or something similar, but its EXPENSIVE if you use it more than your "package" allows.... kinda like going over your alotted time on your mobile phone. IMO, if you're a small 1-5 man shop, go with A. if you're google, B is the more effective solution.