Best of the ISP-Lists

The Right-Sized Colocation Facility

As members of the ISP-Colo list argue about the ideal colocation site, an older argument emerges, comparing the personal service provided by a small business to the professional service of a large business.

[December 21, 2000]

On the ISP-Colo list in December, AB asked,

"What is the best size for a colocation facility? It seems to me that a larger facility can offer more service options, but is more likely to be located in a remote area. Smaller facilities might have more limited options, but they're generally closer to urban areas. Any thoughts?"

CS suggested that bigger is always the better choice:

"The larger the facility, the better you can serve your customers. We build out our facilities in the 100,000 to 250,000 square feet range. The larger sizes allow us to provide state-of-the-art technology through economies of scale." Many respondents, however, disagreed:

[WJ scoffed] "So if we turned the now-empty Astrodome into a data center, would we be able to serve customers better than all the rest? It has been my experience that the educated customer is looking at many more factors than size."

[CN warned] "Bigger is not always better. Some companies can't provide good service at such a large scale. Power, cooling, and security can be issues for such large data centers. Always do due diligence before signing."

[SD agreed] "Have you ever noticed that when companies say they are doing something to better serve the customer, they are really doing it to better serve themselves? Who gives typically gives better service: a small store or a giant warehouse store? The advantage of a large facility is that it can eliminate redundant people; the disadvantage to the customer of eliminating redundant people is fewer people to help them. Remember, the server's whole world is the cabinet housing it, so either a small building or a big building will work just as well."

[BN concluded] "State-of-the-art is not space-specific."

—End