GPU racks draw power at a rate that simply was not on the roadmap for most facilities built even five years ago, which is why power delivery — not floor space — is now the binding constraint.
Behind every application your customers touch sits a physical building full of power, cooling, and fibre. The choices made about that building quietly shape performance, cost, and risk.
What good looks like in practice
Good facilities make the boring things boring: predictable billing, clear escalation paths, and remote-hands requests that get done on the timeline promised, not the timeline hoped for.
The strongest operators are transparent by default — uptime history, incident reports, and maintenance schedules are available without a special request. That openness is itself a signal worth weighing.
A practical way to evaluate
Then shortlist on objective data and validate with your own eyes. Marketplace intelligence is excellent for narrowing the field quickly, but a site visit and a couple of reference calls will tell you things no datasheet can.
Model the whole cost, not the monthly line. Setup fees, cross-connects, bandwidth, growth headroom, and exit terms all belong in the comparison. The cheapest rack rate is rarely the cheapest deployment.
The factors that actually move the needle
Headline pricing is the least reliable basis for comparison. Two facilities quoting similar rates can differ enormously once you account for power redundancy, cross-connect fees, remote-hands rates, and the small print around escalations and renewals.
Connectivity richness is frequently underweighted. A carrier-neutral facility with a dense ecosystem of networks and direct cloud on-ramps can save more over a contract term than a modest difference in the rack rate ever will.
Where buyers get it wrong
The most expensive mistake is optimising for the number everyone sees — the monthly rack rate — while ignoring the numbers nobody asks about until the invoice arrives: cross-connects, remote hands, power overage, and renewal escalators.
Treating tier level as a proxy for reliability is a common shortcut that backfires. Design tier describes redundancy on paper; actual uptime depends on maintenance discipline, staffing, and how the facility has behaved under real incidents.
A short checklist before you sign
- Leave headroom for growth, including higher-density racks down the line
- Read the exit and renewal terms as carefully as the price
- Request recent incident reports, not just a summary uptime percentage
- Total the full cost of ownership, including the fees that hide in the small print
- Ask for real uptime history, not just the design tier
The bottom line
The teams that get this right are rarely the ones with the most resources — they are the ones who asked better questions earlier in the process.