"Impressive" datacenters @ SF?

[richard childers / kg6hac]

> Chuck Yerkes wrote:
>
>Quoting Michael T. Halligan (michael at halligan.org):
>  
>
>>Are there any GOOD hosting facilities in SF.. not resellers/small, but a tier1/2 facility
>>like equinix/att/sprint?  The only one I know of so far is level3.
>>    
>>
>
>My "gut" sense is that SF is a bad place for a really
>really solid datacenter where you want to be always up.
>
>Unlike the East Bay, it's more easily cut off from communications in
>the event of the expected national disaster.
>
>It's always struck me that Oakland (and SJ) would stand to be
>the obvious places for Tier 1 datacenters (the transcontinental
>railroad ended in Oakland - for a reason).
>  
>


For similar reasons, I would avoid Stockton, both for living -and- for 
siting equipment ... it's downwind of both the San Francisco Bay Area in 
general, and Livermore, in particular.

Too bad; lots of nice farmland out there.

San Francisco property rates are still obnoxious, if Craigslist's 
'commercial properties' section is any guide; another reason to avoid 
the tip of the peninsula ... Manhattanesque real estate strategies abound.

(Exercise for the un[der]employed: measure your home's livable square 
footage and figure out how much you're paying, per square foot, per 
month, for rent. If it's over $1.00, you should think about 
renegotiating; you might save yourself $500 a month.)

My $0.02, YMMV, etc.

-- richard


Chuck Yerkes wrote:

>Quoting Michael T. Halligan (michael at halligan.org):
>  
>
>>Are there any GOOD hosting facilities in SF.. not resellers/small, but a tier1/2 facility
>>like equinix/att/sprint?  The only one I know of so far is level3.
>>    
>>
>
>My "gut" sense is that SF is a bad place for a really
>really solid datacenter where you want to be always up.
>
>Unlike the East Bay, it's more easily cut off from communications in
>the event of the expected national disaster.
>
>It's always struck me that Oakland (and SJ) would stand to be
>the obvious places for Tier 1 datacenters (the transcontinental
>railroad ended in Oakland - for a reason).
>
>For things that would be "mostly up" (say a server for a local
>company where outtages in a disaster would be expected for a while
>and not affect a business that would be down anyway), that's where
>resellers fall in.
>
>But that's just my opinion.
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.baylisa.org/pipermail/baylisa/attachments/20030919/eb5d1f62/attachment.html>