Thu Aug 2 18:20:53 NZST 2012
On 2/08/2012 1:09 p.m., Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Ultimately you can place it where ever you want.
Agreed. All the natural disaster FUD really does seem like stuff that
has to be 'managed' where ever you go.
> It doesn't matter much as long as:
Christchurch. - Our ground is now better understood than any other
place in the region.
> a) The data centre is a very good quality one with lots of power and people who are clueful and sane commercially (ie. don't act like d**ks because your _THE_ site to go).
Power is something we can do here. My last 18 months we've had two
short outages and given the quakes we've had, that's just amazing.
People are people where ever you go but I totally agree with you that
it's really important to keep the team grounded and focused.
> b) It has good onsite services so that my NOC guys can call up and get stuff done 24x7
Moving around Christchurch is just quicker and easier than other
locations. So even if staff aren't on site (which I do get you want
them to be), it just doesn't take as long to get them to the site.
Because the city is smaller, the chances of the key staff living further
away is less.
> c) It has *freaking awesome* connectivity to *EVERY* provider in NZ that matters, including TNZ, TC, Vodafone etc so that one deployment can pickup almost all of NZ and that access to the landing stations or connectivity out of NZ is cheap and easy.
Having 'Enabled Networks' with fibre over the whole city means that
getting to the other providers should be simpler.
> d) Less importantly it's easy to get to from Auckland airport, it's got a good hotel nearby and some nice food.
Christchurch has a fantastic international airport which is very close
to a number of industrial parks which would make sense for such a DC.
It's got good hotels with in 10 minutes range of said industrial parks.
> As long as a,b and c are met then people will start appearing. Build it and they will come.
I do understand that 1/3rd of the population is in Auckland, but at
present much of the data is only travelling south.
I wonder if it would be more cost effective to use the 'back load'
capacity heading back up the country?
Where are the major content produces such as TVNZ and Media Works
hosting their servers currently, Auckland?
Further, their are currently a growing number of Christchurch based
investors who are about to be paid out by insurance companies for
buildings that have (or are about to be) pulled down (blown up).
Landing a cable in Westport would make sense to me because we could then
serve Christchurch based content out to Australia --> the world, we can
use the back haul capacity back up past 2/3rds of the country to
Auckland, we get redundancy, what have I missed?
A - We understand the ground.
B - We have an IX and great fibre connectivity.
C - We have 'back load' capacity.
D - We have people with investment money to spend.
MMC > Before you bash me for the north v's south thing, I totally agree
with you, we need to stop that rubbish and just focus on getting the job
done. In presenting these arguments I'm thinking about the technical
issues and key points you raised. It seems to me that there should be
resource at this end of the string that could be used to achieve the
outcomes you're driving at.
31 Acheson Ave
Christchurch, New Zealand
Ph: + 64 3 348 7235
Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699
More information about the NZNOG
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.