SqlGuru — Thu, 01 May 2003 20:37:08 +0000

In a simple statement, if you are not inclined to tweak a servers config files, or you get lost at shell prompts, go Cobalt.

If you prefer to do the hard stuff, like the control and the power trip that having total configuration control gives you, go for the other box.

hostdog — Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:13:34 +0000

It looks like we are talking about different fields of hosting our average server is

p4 1.8 ghz 1gb ram raid 1 80gb hardrives

accounts range from 40 -500 on a server
providing java asp mysql php cgi
average network bandwidth for 5 servers we are using around 1800 gigs a month.

We started with raqs and had constant server overload and crashes due to cgi scripts and php mysql usage we switched to home built 1u's redhat 7.3 and havent had any problems

The raqs we had were two years ago 3i's

I have one left that I tried to keep a couple personal sites on but it couldnt keep up with a vb forum average 40 users online at peak times 5 at mininum.

That is my experience with raqs.

andy206uk — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 08:03:27 +0000

I've worked with cobalt raqs for nearly 4 years, and while they do have their drawbacks, they're pretty solid machines for the beginner.

ROB — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 05:31:45 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by hostdog
what types of sites do you have on these and how many ?

raq3-1 has about 30 sites on it ranging from small personal sites to moderate traffic community sites. also a tiernary nameserver and mail server. most of my personal crap is on this one. about 40gb/mo total traffic. most sites use php or perl with mysql extensively.

raq3-2 secondary nameserver, about 50 sites, 50-70gb/mo total traffic. mostly static but 3 sites in particular account for 70% of the traffic and use php/mysql, netpbm, emal and ftp extensively.

raq3-3 no live sites, dev and backup

raq4 not more than 10 sites, mostly ASP

raq5 primary nameserver and 3 high volume php/mysql websites using netpbm and pdflib extensively, 100+gb mo total traffic

ROB — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 05:23:00 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by hostdog
Then I congratulate you however what types of sites do you have on these and how many ? I can assure you with technical data that a cobalt can not go toe to toe with other servers of the same type.

that's not what you said. you said a raq cant handle "anything outside of static html pages" which is 100% inaccurate.

Quote: I have never seen a cobalt able to handle todays usage scripts or push over 100 gb a month with non static sites.

what do you work with? 10 year old raq 3's? the 1.26ghz p3 and 1gb ram that came in my new 550 seem to work just dandy.

besides, a raq isn't designed to be a dedicated server. if a single site transfers 100gb/mo it shouldnt be on a raq anyway. i'm not a raq fanboy by any means, but they do have their place, and claiming they can't handle dynamic content is just ludicrous.

ihateangle — Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:29:28 +0000

Quote: i definitely wouldn't bother paying for a 400gb bandwidth per month, cos thats a ludicrous amount really, and i highly doubt anyone would use that much in a month! If there is a cheaper option with less bandwidth, take that!

I disagree. My friends site uses about 1500 Gigs of bandwdith a month. But thats a media site that gets a lot of people downloading like 100 meg files etc. but still...thats just 1 site using that much, this is a dedicated server

hostdog — Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:06:25 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by ROB
RaQ's aren't so bad, I have five of em. Hostdog you have no clue what you're talking about.

Then I congratulate you however what types of sites do you have on these and how many ? I can assure you with technical data that a cobalt can not go toe to toe with other servers of the same type.

I have never seen a cobalt able to handle todays usage scripts or push over 100 gb a month with non static sites.

ROB — Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:24:41 +0000

RaQ's aren't so bad, I have five of em. Hostdog you have no clue what you're talking about.

zollet — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:18:50 +0000

Cobalt are just as good as any other server for dynamic websites. Of course, if your site needs more resources than a Cobalt has to offer then that's another story.

hostdog — Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:42:38 +0000

Do not go with the cobalt, Some will probably flame or argue with me. But from 3 years experience these machines are not worth their weight. If you have just static html pages you are fine but anything outside of the the cobalt will not be able to even handle.

Go with the celeron machine you should have no problems