I plan to purchase an inexpensive dedicated server within the next week. I am considering a $100/month raq3 with 4webspace.com or a $129/month 750 MHZ PIII with serverhost.com . I would get 256 MB ram on either machine. The server would be used to host a single web site.

Under what conditions would there be a noticeable difference in performance?

4webspace has an excellent reputation on this forum, while serverhost seems to have a poor reputation. Is it better to get the superior machine with serverhost, or the superior reputation with 4webspace?

Are there any addtional hosts you would recommend?

A RaQ3 has a 300mhz processor. So if you're going to have processor intensive things running (mysql, streaming, cgi, etc.) then you may need a faster processor.

It is quite hard to find a good server under $125.00. It should be all right hosting several site at a RAQ3.

:)

Serverhost has a bad reputation on these boards? Since when?

I'd recommend you go with a linux box over a RaQ. I've worked with both, and the first thing that comes to my mind is cgi-wrap, which is the Perl/CGI "parser" that comes with RaQs. It's absolutely horrible. For that reason alone I'd go with a linux machine.

Serverhost has a bad reputation on these boards? Since when?

Perhaps it is just a few isolated incidents. One thread that scares me is below:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=9779&highlight=plusweb

I gather that for a static with under 100GB/month bandwidth there would not be a significant differnence in performance between a RaQ and a 750 MHZ PIII on Linux. While a CGI or PHP application would be faster on the PIII. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I also heard that the control panel on the RaQ makes it easy to operate. A person with little experience operating a dedicated server would have no problems with a RaQ. I know basic UNIX commands, but I have never operated a dedidicated server. Am I likely to run into problems with the PIII?

the other guy up there is right
raq's arent that fast (processor wise)

Your best off getting a real server, not a raq. 256megs of ram, 750 or whatever you said, big hard drive space, (20gb) etc
;/
Besides, RAQ's Cobalt OS or whatever Cobalt LIinux 5.0 os are liek a bad rip off of redhat.

But iguess it was meant for webhosting

Though I agree with most of what node9 said (slow processors, better to get something faster, etc...), I thought I'd just mention that the Cobalt OS isn't a 'bad rip off' of Red Hat, rather the Cobalt OS is a modified version of Red Hat Linux, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't trying to slide one by you, heh.

Originally posted by NVB
I also heard that the control panel on the RaQ makes it easy to operate. A person with little experience operating a dedicated server would have no problems with a RaQ. I know basic UNIX commands, but I have never operated a dedidicated server. Am I likely to run into problems with the PIII?

Yeah, the RaQ control panel does make it very easy to admin a server. You really don't need any experience to get everything up and running, though I do recommend you get a book on linux or something.

You'd have to read a few books to get up and running with a regular linux box, especially one on Apache and DNS...

Aloha

a raq should do you
but how many pages are they dynamic ??
what kind of scripting language is needed ?
email needed
doing certain thenigs you need ??

how much traffic do you expect ?

any stats might help

hehehe...
I am in the server business and I do not know RAQ3 only has 300 mhz!

We used 300mhz back in 1998, Good progress cobalt :)

Not that the RaQ3 was the fastest machine when it was introduced, but it isn't Sun nor Cobalt's current model. (Cobalt's current model was a failure however and was recalled I believe). I'm not trying to defend those blue little pizza boxes, rather point this out.

hey what happened to my post!!! Why was it deleted ?

how many pages are they dynamic ??
what kind of scripting language is needed ?
email needed doing certain thenigs you need ??
how much traffic do you expect ?any stats might help
I am considering two options in regards to hosting the site:

option 1 - host entire site on the server

I expect the site to use 65GB bandwidth and get 8 million hits this month. These totals should increase by 10-15% per month. 8% of the hits and 16% of the bandwidth are on dynamically generated CGI pages. The only scripting language I need is standard PERL. There is no signicant email requirement.

option 2 - host the message board separately, on a virtual server

If I choose this option the dedicated server will be entirely static html. The dedicated server would get 55GB/month bandwidth and 7.4million hits/month. There would be no scripting requirements and no email requirements.


I think that it would be best to host option 1 on the 750 MHZ PIII, while option 2 would work well on either server.

Aloha

well I would say do not try option 1 on a raq 3 a raq 4 with more memory should do ya rackshack has good bang for buck on bandwith and pricing also
but If it were me
I would not go with a raq at all only go with a PIII sys
this is what I would want
at least a pIII 750 at least 512 megs SCSI HD raid 1
again depends on how much I am making off the site to pay for this
so the offer you have for $129 sounds the best to me.

Originally posted by NVB


Perhaps it is just a few isolated incidents. One thread that scares me is below:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=9779&highlight=plusweb

That's been long since resolved... If you have any questions about the incident, feel free to ICQ me or e-mail me and I'd be happy to discuss it...

Regards,

Originally posted by Chicken
I thought I'd just mention that the Cobalt OS isn't a 'bad rip off' of Red Hat, rather the Cobalt OS is a modified version of Red Hat Linux, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't trying to slide one by you, heh.

well yeah thats what i meant
it is a modified version
It isnt really that great
I don't like the cobalt web contorl panel stuff though...
if the person who started this thread has the time, they should definately learn linux, get a book or something. like me, i got a perl book :) i have been wanting to learn perl for awhile. Sad part is i havent gotten very far in the book no time ;/

I can't really do much besides
print "chicken owns me";

lol
but i'm getting there!

Originally posted by NVB

I am considering two options in regards to hosting the site:

option 1 - host entire site on the server

I expect the site to use 65GB bandwidth and get 8 million hits this month. These totals should increase by 10-15% per month. 8% of the hits and 16% of the bandwidth are on dynamically generated CGI pages. The only scripting language I need is standard PERL. There is no signicant email requirement.

option 2 - host the message board separately, on a virtual server

If I choose this option the dedicated server will be entirely static html. The dedicated server would get 55GB/month bandwidth and 7.4million hits/month. There would be no scripting requirements and no email requirements.


I think that it would be best to host option 1 on the 750 MHZ PIII, while option 2 would work well on either server.


NVB,

Based on what you are needing, I'd say either go with Weinbar, maybe they can work out a deal with you, or go with above.net west coast. If you go DIRECTLY to above.net the price will be sky high i can bet, but if you go through another company, like pogolinux, then you can get a good deal. they have exactly what you are looking for. I have a 750mhz ded server from there, 128mb ram. 20 gig hd, pretty nice..... never goes down.

I mean i know you don't have alot of money to spend and all, or atleast you didnt want to from waht I remember, but you should what i'm suggesting.

Weinbar is also very good, my server there never goes down there either, so that's thumbs up for weinbar :)

and as a final note
whatever you do
DO not go with CobaltRacks.com or Cobaltrack or whatever it is
:)