Just got an email from the head surfer, which included the following:

------------------------------------
9. We are investigating the POSSIBILITY of offering an extra hard drive and as option to our Raq customers. This would provide a potential solution to the current back up dilemma. Testing will continue with various models and methods through the weekend. While we are sure that it WILL work, we want to be sure that we are not creating a support and reliability nightmare. If we do make this available, we are considering either a one-time fee of $295 or perhaps a set-up fee of $150 and a monthly fee of $29. Any input would be appreciated.
------------------------------------

Personally, I would vastly prefer to pay a once-off fee of $295, and would certainly take Rackshack up on that offer. If it was a $29/month deal on the other hand, I would probably be less likely to take it. All that said, everyone has their own opinion, so here goes a poll.

Disclaimer: I am not associated with Rackshack in any way, apart from being a customer. The reason I opened this poll is because it interests me how Rackshack customers would like to be billed for an additional hard disk (noting that it is only a POSSIBILITY that such a service will be offered by above company).

Hmm... I must have missed the announcement from WebHostingTalk that said, "We are changing the 'Cobalt RaQ Fourm' to the 'Rackshack.net Forum'."

Originally posted by IntelligentHosting.com
Hmm... I must have missed the announcement from WebHostingTalk that said, "We are changing the 'Cobalt RaQ Fourm' to the 'Rackshack.net Forum'."

You are quite correct: this is not the 'Rackshack.net Forum'. However, Rackshack are one of MANY great providers for Cobalt RaQ's. As such, I believe this to be 'on topic' (I would not have posted it otherwise). If it were not okay to discuss a particular provider here, I doubt there would be many [any] posts. :P

Originally posted by avara
If it were not okay to discuss a particular provider here, I doubt there would be many [any] posts. :P
That's strange, because this forum was here way before Rackshack came along. Also, a quick look at the first topics page indicates to me that other than a few about Rackshack's unbelieveable bandwidth offering, nearly all threads are tech-related questions about RaQs.

This has been one of the few, great (i.e., with a large number of members and posts) RaQ tech-related Q&A forums, and I hate to see it turn into a Rackshack sales-policy discussion forum. It's ultimately up to the mods to decide though.

Thanks for letting me vent in your thread.

IMHO, you both have good points. We are all provided with this great forum at the pleasure of the moderators. They maintain the service, pay the bills, etc. I was hesitant to post my reply on this board (for fear of it being considered advertising) after reviewing the rules published here. However, I sought prior permission.

With that said, many of the posters of Rackshack comments are Rackshack customers. At the suggestion of one of our customers, we'll be adding our own board to allow discussion on our site. That will likely reduce the somewhat "sales" related information that has been discussed here. However, IMHO, it is more "service improvement" than sales related.

This forum has been a great help in getting feedback on our service. When we weren't doing so well, the posts here gave us an insight into what our customers were feeling and what they wanted. It has been a great help to them and us.

I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toe and I thank the moderators for their patience. I would also invite any offline discussion of our service.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net
ram3@ev1.net

Robert,

I want to say that it's very cool you're taking the initiative to get a back up system setup quickly. That looks very good on your part. If I do continue to use the RaQ's platform I will certainly look into your services.

BUT let me tell you about this little *neat* backup/restore program that Cobalt has put together. It doesn't work worth crap (sorry but I have no respect for it at the moment :D ).

I had a hacker get into one of my RaQ's last week (it was a RaQ4i that's not hosted with you) so the host restored the OS, and I began uploading my 2GB back up file that was created the night before by that little tool. After waiting 2-3 hours for it to be put on the server, I attempted to restore it. The restore program returned "unkown error" on EVERY single file, leaving me with a 2GB file that was useless.

If you are going to put ANY effort into a back up system, make sure that it DOES NOT rely on cobalt's code... because it won't work. Another drive is awesome.. but when the .raq doesn't work it makes that $295 or whatever a waste of money. Have a script written that tar's the appropriate files, and hten have another script written to restore it...

Just my 4 million dollars worth ;)

Hello. I was thinking maybe you could leave it upto the individual for what plan they want or will that cause a lot of problems?

Thanks!

i agree with that last post.
Leaving it up to the customer would be cool.

However It depends which strategy RackShack decides to take.

If they expect to have customers for a long period of time, they should charge monthly, as they will end up making much more.
Opposite for the 250$ one time fee.

Overall the one time fee is probably a better idea, since when you buy a dedicated server, you would expect to use it for more than 6months, meaning you would save money with this plan.

:D

Ok, I am impressed with this Rackshack stuff. Looking like the home of my next server. My $.0002 (still a newbie) is that a Raq 4i has a dual ethernet. The second card could be on a local network with non-routable IP's. Rackshack gets a Large network storage device and hooks the racks to it. Total cost per gig is likely to be lower. Lets people purchase space on it (one time cost) and provides them a IP (local no cost IP with no outside bandwidth) to backup to, rsync whatever. Probably get a group to pay for it and make several dollars in no time.

The most likely failure is a hard drive and this would allow restore to a replacement server with physically not opening a box. I don't know just a thought. I am trying to get the backup off the same box (and possibly the same location as read you have several).

I was researching a second hard drive for a raq 3 and noticed the specs call for a low power 5400 rpm - drive. My first choice would have been different (7200 RPM).

:beer:

Thread is ok, as it was posted by customer. Just watch it...

Hmm... I must have missed the announcement from WebHostingTalk that said, "We are changing the 'Cobalt RaQ Fourm' to the 'Rackshack.net Forum'."

A little edgy, period.

Yes it is a Cobalt Raq forum, and most of the people who chat on this section of webhosting talk are either customers of rackshack or 4webspace. Why do you really care if we post our thoughts about our "Cobalt Raq" dedicated provider, hell, atleast now someone is reading what we have to say and is doing something about it.

forum topic = cobalt
rackshack topic = cobalt
hmm..