- It is my understanding that WP policy is that we leave Britishisms as found, so as not to get into revert wars over language usage -- unless the topic of the article is clearly very strongly inclined towards a specific side of the Atlantic; articles about British Royalty, frex.
--Baylink (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
shouldn't this be spelled "collocation" ?
- I've seen the phrase "co-location center" used, too, but neither this nor that is more popular than "colocation center". While we're at it, google finds more results for the American spelling, which is probably because the US market is larger. --Joy [shallot] 21:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure this article is headed in the right direction, honestly. It's correct WRT things which really *are* carrier hotels, but there are lots of colo sites that are not: they're merely datacenters built with one or more uplinks wherein a webhosting facility (usually) rents out rack space to customers who want to manage their own boxes.
Any thoughts on that, folks? --Baylink 21:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Having heard nothing; I rewrote to take "most colos are carrier hotels" out, since it doesn't reflect the market as I can examine it.
--Baylink (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Equivalent to telehousing facility
Is Telehousing facility equivalant to Colocation centre or is there a difference, if there is what is it, if there isnt then it should probably be mentioned in the article. Htaccess 01:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, what exactly is a GlassFibre Ring? Google yields nothing and I think it might be a made up term or a bastardization of Fibre Optic and network ring. Omicron91 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really like the term colocation facility for a Telehouse-style facility (which I think is what this article intends to be about). Colocated essentially means in the same location as. You colocate your server with your ISP when you install it in your ISP's location.
But, logically, a colocation facility is a facility where you can put things, which will then be in the same location as, well, other things in that facility. It seems pretty much utterly meaningless as a term.
Carrier hotel - well, I confess I don't really know what one is - it's not a term I'm used to hearing that often. Maybe it's just a US thing?
Personally I'd refer to Telehouse et al as a carrier-neutral datacentre. Datacentre should be obvious, and carrier-neutral because telecommunications services (mainly, but not necessarily entirely, Internet services) are provided by any carrier that chooses to offer services there, rather than by the datacentre operator itself or by carrier(s) who have a concession from the operator.
However, I guess this might be a little contentious for me to go a-renaming :-)
What do other people think?
Roy Badami 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, Colocation redirects here, and I'm not sure that makes sense, regardless of what this article is (or thinks it should be) about.
I think maybe it should be split into an article on Colocation and an article on carrier-neutral datacentres
Roy Badami 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Companies in the States are increasingly utilizing the higher ROI of a colo than burdening themselves with the
- overhead of an internal datacenter. There are different levels of service with a colo that range from "Full"
- to "None", where "Full" means they handle everything: They have the technicians that will monitor, update/patch
- software, upgrade/replace hardware, etc. They assume responsibility for the security of
- your data, guarantee 99.99% availability, perform backups, etc. That level of service is very expensive, but for
- a small/medium sized company that wants the advantages of being on the web, but doesn't have the budget for the
- expertise or monitoring it requires, it is the perfect solution. Often, companies will use them for their
- customer facing, critical and/or production servers, and keep the rest of the equipment in their data center.
- I do know that a telecommunications flavor of colo exists as well, but it hasn't experienced near the popularity
- seen by the datacenter variety.
- I have never heard the term "carrier-neutral datacentres" here. If one were to describe one to, say, a Network
- Admin in Texas, that tech would likely respond, "You mean, a colo?".
The concept of co-location is not and industry specific term. It is used in many businesses to describe the practice of including multiple similar or complementary concepts such as restaurants (KFC/Pizza Hut) or supermarkets (Donut shops or Starbucks in a supermarket) in a single location. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
- Well, Roy, for my part, the distinction between a colo and a "datacenter" is that if you just call it a datacenter, I assume it's owned and run by *and for* one organization. The differences are largely on the physical security side--if all the personell are employees of the company in the center, even if that center rents out, say, web service or VPSs to end users, then you have a different set of constraints to work to. But "colo" is a term which, at least in US networking usage, has a pretty specific meaning: a place where I can rent a cage, shelf, or slot, and they'll provide me power, cooling, and some bandwidth or a way to connect to it. That's what I've rewritten the piece to reflect, though as usual other input is welcome. :-)
--Baylink (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- With IT and communications facilities in safe, secure hands, telecommunications, internet, ASP and content providers, as well as enterprises, enjoy less latency and the freedom to focus on their core business.
This seems to be a little too pro-colo? I'd change it but I never actually edit Wikipedia so I'm not sure how the rules work. -Korin43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC).
I agree that this seems rather strongly pro-colocation. The sentence could be revised, however I feel that having it removed, at least in the short-term, would be feasible without losing any valuable content.JelloExperience (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This article has the stamp of "marketing material" all over it. The wording describes "best in class" or the "ideal colocation facility", but the article should be about colocation facilities in general. The article loses its neutrality/factuality if it assumes the facility is run in an ideal fashion in order to be true. This article should not, and wikipedia in general does not attempt to describe a well-run example of the subject in question, but rather the subject in the general case. This article, as written, would not apply to a poorly run colocation facility with un-patched systems, obsolete hardware, poorly-trained personnel, etc. etc. If a second article would have to be written to cover these facilities, then this article must be poorly written. I will make changes that I feel are appropriate, and look forward to further input.Sollosonic (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sollosonic is correct, and hopefully I've filed enough of the gloss off to make the article a bit more useful.
--Baylink (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Definition of 'colocation'
Coming to this article new, and as a semi-technical outsider, I can't help noticing that the page doesn't really contain a definition of what 'colocation' means in this context. Or if the defining feature is mentioned, it doesn't really stand out from the list of other features of a 'colocation center'. Might someone want to put a sentence at the top which explains how a colocation center is different from other sorts of data center. What is being 'colocated' with what? Thanks. Warraqeen (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Multiple customers, some being carriers, are all co-located with one another. Hopefully my rewrite makes that a bit clearer.
--Baylink (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok; I'm pretty current on this, since I'm moving into one this week :-), so I've done some rewriting and cleanup today to try and wash some of the Brochure Gloss off of this article. In particular, I rewrote the lede, so that--hopefully--it does a better job explaining what the article's intended to be about.
I'm sure this isn't the only way this stuff is done, but I think the current version covers fairly comprehensively the way at least American providers do this--contributions concerning other countries' practice are always welcome of course. I didn't un-Briticise some spots as that's standard practice; we do try not to get into "2 countries divided by a common language" fights on WP.