On 11/4/06, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob La Quey wrote:
> Why would companies object to just buying a bigger chunk of the
> solution and buying that chunk in a "plug it in and use it" box?
> Things like this could be housed in a tin shed in a parking lot i.e.
> it has the potential to be a _lot_ less expensive infrastructure than
> the existing builders/contractors/architects approach.
Because people who need that box don't build their own building, anyhow.
They put it in a colocation facility.
A couple banks are running their main systems in the AIS colo. They
achieve reliability by having 3 or 4 similar systems in other colocation
facilities around the world.
They didn't have to build anything.
-a
That is not really an answer to the question I posed. It just pushes
the question on toward the company providing the colo. What advantage
does the colo company get by using a traditional approach to data
centers?
BobLQ
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
