Solved

Remote Hosting vs Local Server

Posted on 2014-03-03
4
198 Views
Last Modified: 2014-03-08
Hello Experts

Here's the deal:

My client has used a PC s a "server" from the beginning.  This "server' was offered by the software vendor completely configured.  It was the best option for a long time.  It is now time to look at a real server.  So we are considering the upgrade.  However, we also have the option of remote hosting.

So here is the question:

Our local network is  Gigabit.  With a server and 3 Gigabit connections, why should we expect as fast response from an internet connection of 6MB to a hosted server?

Shouldn't we expect  some latency?  

And if so, from the perspective of speed and latency, wouldn't  a local server be a better option?

I admit, I don't know much at all about remote hosting.  It just seems to me that a 1GB connection is superior to a 6MB connection.

Am I looking at this the right way?

thedslguy
0
Comment
Question by:thedslguy
  • 2
  • 2
4 Comments
 
LVL 35

Expert Comment

by:Dan Craciun
ID: 39901922
What's this "server" supposed to do?

It's a server for a critical internal application? If so, it does make sense to keep it locally, or at least a hybrid variant to cover for internet outages.

It's a web server? Definitely host it on your ISP, so your clients can reach it faster.

It's a file server? Definitely keep it internal, as the 6MB pipe will be a serious bottleneck.

So unless you can be a little more precise on the purpose of the server, I can only guess and give general advice.

HTH,
Dan
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:thedslguy
ID: 39901961
Dan

It is a file and software server.

It houses a database as well as software for a vendor.

If yoe need more information, please let me know

tdg
0
 
LVL 35

Accepted Solution

by:
Dan Craciun earned 500 total points
ID: 39901966
If it's a file server, keep it local.

For the application, it really depends on how much data it sends over the network and how many clients connect to the server.
Most ERP's I know have light network traffic unless they have a document management component, in which case they move gigabytes of scanned pdfs every day.

If you have the budget, I'd say go for a local version. You can even opt for a hybrid approach, where you have 2 servers, one local and one on the clouds, but that might be overkill.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Closing Comment

by:thedslguy
ID: 39914796
I got what I needed with the first post.

Thanks!!

tdg
0

Featured Post

Now Available: Firebox Cloud for AWS and FireboxV

Firebox Cloud brings the protection of WatchGuard’s leading Firebox UTM appliances to public cloud environments. It enables organizations to extend their security perimeter to protect business-critical assets in Amazon Web Services (AWS).

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Quality of Service (QoS) options are nearly endless when it comes to networks today. This article is merely one example of how it can be handled in a hub-n-spoke design using a 3-tier configuration.
Outsource Your Fax Infrastructure to the Cloud (And come out looking like an IT Hero!) Relative to the many demands on today’s IT teams, spending capital, time and resources to maintain physical fax servers and infrastructure is not a high priority.
This video gives you a great overview about bandwidth monitoring with SNMP and WMI with our network monitoring solution PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg). If you're looking for how to monitor bandwidth using netflow or packet s…
In this tutorial you'll learn about bandwidth monitoring with flows and packet sniffing with our network monitoring solution PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg). If you're interested in additional methods for monitoring bandwidt…

740 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question