I have a hard time believing the setup pictured offers equivalent reliability/disaster recovery to "cloud" hosting.
As far as I can tell, all traffic is being routed through two servers. These servers are running Linux? What happens when a routine software update bricks your routing (it could happen to anyone). Without remote access you need someone to go in and fix this. Do you have after hours access? Is someone nearby on call to respond to complex issues in person? Not all physical problems can be solved by a random colo tech.
Colocation (as pictured) lacks management of a lot of variables that could lead to big problems. When your downtime targets are in minutes per year any incident requiring physical response is unacceptable.
A simple Google search reveals a service philosophy compatible with this hosting[1]:
> As with all web systems, at some point, downtime is required.
As far as I can tell, all traffic is being routed through two servers. These servers are running Linux? What happens when a routine software update bricks your routing (it could happen to anyone). Without remote access you need someone to go in and fix this. Do you have after hours access? Is someone nearby on call to respond to complex issues in person? Not all physical problems can be solved by a random colo tech.
Colocation (as pictured) lacks management of a lot of variables that could lead to big problems. When your downtime targets are in minutes per year any incident requiring physical response is unacceptable.
A simple Google search reveals a service philosophy compatible with this hosting[1]:
> As with all web systems, at some point, downtime is required.
For the rest of us there's "cloud" hosting.
[1] https://www.servethehome.com/pardon-dust-upgrades-progress/