<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<blockquote type="cite">Chuck Yerkes wrote:<br>
<pre wrap="">Quoting Michael T. Halligan (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael@halligan.org">michael@halligan.org</a>):
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Too bad; lots of nice farmland out there.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
(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.)<br>
<br>
My $0.02, YMMV, etc.<br>
<br>
-- richard<br>
<br>
<br>
Chuck Yerkes wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid20030919183903.GB25886@snew.com">
<pre wrap="">Quoting Michael T. Halligan (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:michael@halligan.org">michael@halligan.org</a>):
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>