I have some dobuts about the server load. Lets say Cobalt they are 450Mhz with 128 or 256 Mb and if we talk about DELL , IBM or COMPAQ servers both on linux. Which servers are superior.
How many sites can a cobalt and Dell server handel ( 20 MB with 40MB data transfer per day).

How can we decide the server?

Not much unless your dell machine is at least a P3 800 with 512 RAM then you can hold about 100 sites depending on average load.

If you have a choice choose a linux box instead of a cobalt raq.

-Andy

Originally posted by jolly
Lets say Cobalt they are 450Mhz with 128 or 256 Mb and if we talk about DELL , IBM or COMPAQ servers both on linux. Which servers are superior. How many sites can a cobalt and Dell server handel ( 20 MB with 40MB data transfer per day).

If you are comparing a current DELL/IBM/COMPAQ with a RaQ4, then the current ones will be more powerful. RaQ4's weren't the most powerful server available even when they introduced them. If you took a similar COMPAQ with an AMD K6/2-450 and the same amount of ram, both servers configured and optimized, they'd most likely perform almost the same.

You cannot tell how many sites a server will be able to handle. What you could say, is that a more powerful server with more ram would be able to handle more than a less powerful server. That's about it. You can throw out wild guesses, but I don't think it would help all that much.

Lets say there is avg. 2 GB data transfer per day.
Can we divide 2GB/number of sites or we can add the total data transfer of all the sites.
If we can decide the sites from our bandwith then how much a CPU with 256 MB RAM can handel 2 GB data transfer.
Let me know something about the datatransfer.

Originally posted by Synergy
Not much unless your dell machine is at least a P3 800 with 512 RAM then you can hold about 100 sites depending on average load.
What?! A P3 800 with 512 MB RAM can not handel about 120 GB/month?

A RaQ4i with 256 MB RAM can do about 200-300 GB/month without any problems (see some postings in the RaQ Forum).

Why a PIII 800 with 512 can't handel but a Raq450 with 256. What is so special about Raq4.
Is it OS of Raq or the Machine which makes it so powerful. But I have doubt why PIII800 is not able to handel all.
Can you tell me something about it.

I have to agree with Chicken. I think it all depends on the sites. For example, a website like WHT uses a lot of server resources (CPU, MEM, etc), but not too much bandwidth since it's mostly text/scripts. It would be 100 times higer load if this site was using a flat text database forum software. However, a download site might not use too much server resources, but it could use maybe 500GB of bandwidth per month. This is why I agree with Chickens statement above.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, you might get a faster loading site if you get a dedicated RaQ4 rather than going with shared hosting on a Pentium4 1,400Mhz. It depends on the load of the server.

Why buy a RaQ?
They come with their own "control panel."
They are cheaper than most other dedicated servers (hence rackshack.net, etc.).
They are relatively simple to use and find support for.

Originally posted by jolly
Why a PIII 800 with 512 can't handel but a Raq450 with 256. What is so special about Raq4.
Is it OS of Raq or the Machine which makes it so powerful. But I have doubt why PIII800 is not able to handel all.
Can you tell me something about it.

You misunderstood what he said. He wasn't comparing the two in his statements. The PIII 800 with 512 would perform considerably better than RaQ4 450 with 256.

The OS of the RaQ is merely a modified RedHat Linux. It has no super powers. :D

yeah, I just wanted to say, that a PIII 800 can handle much more than 4 GB/day.

In fact such a server would be able to handle more than 10GB/day easily and that is really much. But it alway depends of the sites you are hosting. If you you don´t give them access to a mysql database and perhaps no cgi-bin or php, so that they are forced to use static files, than even much more traffic is possible.

But. Small private sites also don´t cause 40 MB traffic just on html files/graphics. Cuz that would mean, that they have each about 800 visits (if a html file is about 50 kb big, and thats big. graphics are loaded from the cach, so they cause just once traffic/visitor). And that is VERY much for such a site!

I think this post is about server loads ...not bandwidth usage. but i could be wrong. :blush: :cartman:

:uhh: :erm:

A Cobalt RAQ 450mhz is not comparable to a PIII 800mhz because they are using different processors.

In terms of raw processing power, Intel generally wins in the PIII series vs MIPS and others.

If you are running the same site on two different servers, the server with more power will push more data. Comparing different sites on different machines isn't all that helpful.


Hope this helps,

Rik

The topic of this thread is extremely circumstancial. I would suggest trying things out for yourself. Start small and grow.

Originally posted by RikRok
A Cobalt RAQ 450mhz is not comparable to a PIII 800mhz because they are using different processors.
In terms of raw processing power, Intel generally wins in the PIII series vs MIPS and others.


The Cobalt RaQ 4 does _not_ use a MIPS CPU. It's an i386 series CPU, just as the Pentium III.

In reality it's an AMD 450 mHz. So if you compare it to a PIII 800 mHz, we all know who wins.

What many do not consider is, that they may not need all that processing power... and that they may be better off with an easy understandable GUI.

The reason I ask for load was cos I've come to know about a hosting company that has PIII550 Mhz with 256 MB RAM. They have loaded there server with more than 600 sites :eek:
I guess most of the sites will be static not dynamic that use lot of system resources.
Do you know any company that is doing the same trick like putting dynamic on one powerful server and static with no database and no CGI on one.
How about these geocities and fortunecity. How many sites do they run on there server and what is there server configuration.

depends on content - cgi, php, mySQL takes a lot of resources - and if your machine has better CPU PIII800+, more RAM 512MB, 1GB + it is always better, SCSI a real accelerator too.

Peter

From personal experience...

We have a customer X that had a Raq3, hosted about 20 sites on it and it was always almost near crash (cpu load anywhere from 2 to 10). The server was using a full 1 mbps line.

Now, he bought a p3.800, 1 GB RAM, and is hosting the same old 20 sites plus another 15 sites. From current stats, he is using a sustained transfer of 250k/sec (2 mbps)

The CPU load never go over 1, and that is when the web stats are analyzed...


Regarding web sites, Cobalt Raqs are only good when you start and can afford to pay the extra cost.

They are not cheap... they are really expensive when you get down to the material they put into it (old AMD cpu, cheap ram, cheap HDs...) But they are easy to use.


I personally suggest any other brand of computers more than cobalts.