Ok, what host should I go with?

#1-Reseller account
5000 Megabytes of Disk Space
40 Gigabyte of data transfer
500 POP Email Accounts
unlimited autoresponders
unlimited email aliases
unlimited email forwarders
500 Sub Domains
100 ftp accounts
15 MySQL Databases
PHP+Perl+CGI
99.9% Uptime Guarantee

No Setup Fee
Monthly Price: $80

Additional Bandwidth
$2.5 per GB
or $20 for every 10 GB

Here is the server config: (Which is located in Phoenix, AZ).
Intel Pentium III 866 Mhz
512MB SDRAM
Dual Embedded 10/100 NICs
Dual 30GB ATA100 7200RPM EIDE Hard Disk
RedHat 6.2

Connection: Fully Burstable.
Direct Connection via fiber to UUNet/Genuity (OC-192, no telco loops)

#2-Dedicated Server
800mhz server, 256 ram, linux, 20gig hd, 25 gigs of transfer for $99.95 a month.

#3 RAQ from rackshac.net
-450MHZ processor
-256MB RAM
-300GB BANDWITH MO!
-20GB HD
-Linux OS

My site will basically be static HTML Files, I'll run some scripts (Forum-Perl w/ MySQL DB and a PHP script w/ MySQL DB)
My forum will have around 20 users active normally, The high users could be around 30-60...
I like the RAQ because of all the bandwith, but would it be very slow with that many users?
I like the reseller account, because it's fast and cheap...
He said the CPU usage on the server was usually near 0% anyway...So, it's basically like a Dedicated.
The Dedicated server has nice specs, but not enough bandwith.

Vote for your choice....

On #1, I get Cpanel3 for every domain....
So that's another good thing about it....;)

To me, a lot would depend on how comfortable you are running your own server.

Connection: Fully Burstable.
Direct Connection via fiber to UUNet/Genuity (OC-192, no telco loops)

Whoever has this on their site is lying. No one has lit OC-192's. They maybe in the MCI (UUNet) colo, but they still are not lit. I bet if you ask, they have only an *OC-3* in bandwidth. Don't be fooled by this claim. The cost to run OC-192 is huge. You would need to be pushing serious bandwidth, and last I checked not a single OC-192 has been lit for traffic.

My advice is to avoid the ones who stated this. Who knows what else they claim that is false?

I would chose #2. However if like SoftWareRevue said, if you are not versed in Linux, go with RackShack.

Thanks for the advice. It was someone @ this forum who offered me that. He/She seemed pretty nice, so I'll still think about it.

Do you think the RAQ would be slow w/ my kind of traffic?
I think the forums would be pretty slow, I want it as fast as possible.

I think the RAQ would be fine for what you intend to use if for.
However, I don't think I'd purchase it from rachshack (picking on your poll spelling:D )

It was someone @ this forum who offered me that. He/She seemed pretty nice, so I'll still think about it.

Did you ever meet a salesperson who wasn't nice? :D I am sure they will find my remarks offensive, however they stand.

The RAQ4 will have no trouble with that load.

rachshack
Lol, I've called it that a couple times now.

So, you really think the 450MHZ RAQ w/ 256MB RAM can handle 30 people on a site consistently? I don't want it okay speeds, I want it fast loading...
What's the RAQs connection?

Anyone know of some forums hosted on a Raq from Rackshack (Rachshack)? I'd like to see the speed of them....

We had a UBB on a RAQ2 with about 100 other sites a year ago. It worked fine until they went over ~20 people.

I really don't see a RAQ4 having issues with a PHP based forum. Post on the RAQ forum and ask some users there.

It's a Perl based forum, with a MySQL DB.
Perl is usually slower than PHP anyway..
I would use vB, but Ikonboard is free and almost as good.
I wish the RAM upgrade wasn't so expensive...
So, the slow processor really isn't a big deal? I thought MySQL used a lot of the CPU, doesn't it?