my raq has been going for 100 days stright now when should they be rebooted?

If a server is doing fine (no excessive CPU or RAM usage) no need to reboot it.

Note: You are lucky to have a RAQ up this long, believe me :)

Oh i hate the thing Felix its never been down but everynow and then it gets so slow it takes the page 5min to load! I have to keep it because of a contract but they said i can cancel at anytime and then they resell it but then they told me im technically not allowed to move my site untill my contract is up so im stuck! i have no idea of what they mean buy that if they sell it to someone elese how can my site not be moved? i've had it almsot 4 months

I have nothing against a raq i just think my site was faster on a reg box and it was much cheaper i take it that you've had a bad experience with one to? :)

Why not simply request a reboot from the sys admins?

I think she is asking 'when should they be rebooted' (as in wehen should she reboot it). I know people who have Linux/Unix systems (similar to Raq) running for several months without a reboot. But if you're doing web hosting, especially with multiple domains and CGI scripting you will encounter memory leaks (most probably due to poor programming on client's behalf )at some point and useless processes that eat far too much memory. Why not reboot it and about an hour after you do type 'top' from the command line to get a picture of your system status. When you next type 'top' and if the values stray a lot from when you first typed 'top' then it's times to reboot.

I'd probably reboot once every month, in the early hours so not to effect many people. Which is still great considering I have to reboot NT everyday. Linux/Unix is much better at handling memory, but is still not 100% perfect.

The key is, what harm can it do to reboot once a month. The answer is nothing. I mean, if the reboot causes a problem to surface which would have happened sooner or later, why not choose sooner to get it out of the way, rather than later as a "surprise".

NO OS is great at releasing resources. While linux is better than some, it's not perfect. When I had my RaQ I rebooted monthly.

Gee, people I talk to don't have to neerdlessly reboot their RaQs Felix and theirs seem to run... guess you just don't like them.

Jen, a slow page load could be due to anthing (am I the only one tinking this?), but doing what sysadmin said and rebooting every now and then could freshen things up a bit. You may want to post questions to the Cobalt users lists. I found them to be more helpful.

Well when you have a 300mhz AMD processor running any box its bound to get slow exp. when you throw cgi in to the mix, Jen if its running slow your best bet is to throw some extra ram in there. CObalt are great because they make things very easy, but the fact that there is a 300mhz processor in there combined with the fact that its a AMD (one of the worst processors out there besides cyrix) makes for a very slow platform.

Originally posted by Chicken
Gee, people I talk to don't have to neerdlessly reboot their RaQs Felix and theirs seem to run... guess you just don't like them.

Chicken, I have several reasons to dislike RAQs as a system admin. Let me list you some of the problems we had with the raq2 & 3 we have, some for us, some for our dedicated clients.

Frontpage not working, half working depending on the server
Cobalt Patches that create more problems than they fix (fact)
FTP generating weird errors that can only be fixed by removing HD quota system, even though everything in the config file is perfect
BUT, thats nothing compaired to what is following :)

su to root disabled but root login enabled on a server, cron not working
DNS data corrupted twice on 2 different servers, the control panel's PostgreSQL backbone get corrupted, cobalt scripts to check the sanity of the system corrupt it, (removed the passwd and httpd.conf file)
Endless out of sync errors, access to Control Panel messed up, even though the config file is perfect...

that was only to name a few. And don't expect any help from cobalt. I waited more than 20 hours on hold with them, and last time it was to get an answer "our engeneere will work on it" which they did... they logged on the server, looked at the httpd.conf file, logged out and did nothing. No phone call, no e-mail, nothing

Now I don't want to give you a bad impressions on these wonderfull servers... it is probably only bad luck, isn't it?
:P

Oh, the latest thing a cobalt tech found to explain my problem was that:
*cough*
I changed the default 404 error page!!!!! OMG.

*sigh*

Seriously, these servers do have some good potential... but the after-sell support is non-existent, with a legion of tech just good to tell you how to set up POP3 accounts. When you have a real problem, you are referred to 20 different guys that all reffer you to someone else, untill you find the problem and fix it yourself.

Now, We have our guarentee void on 1 or more server because I had to fix the problem myself in httpd.conf now that is only a text file that has no impact on anything else in the server. Only on apache.

Anyhow, if I didnt void it, the server would be empty by now because we would have lost all the customers on it.

Still think it is midless hate?

cbaker17

Look into the active monitor, and check the CPU & RAM usage. if the cpu is over 1-2, it is not good... if the RAM is over used either...
try rebooting it when it is slow... if you see that it is much faster and stay faster for around a day... then you can probably guess that a weekly reboot would be good. If that is not enough, nighlty will be required.

I admin a server that needs nightly reboots or someone weird in the server (that contains no CGI, running off the defuault cobalt installation) gradually eats up all the RAM & CPU. that was the solution we found to suits our client the best, since he couldnt afford a total server wipeout.

For medium loaded, a cobalt is fine... if your site has heavy usage, a raq under 512 ram is definately a no-no

512 ram ones, when theya re working if you do do anything to them... they usually work fine.

Good luck :)

Jen:
I just read your second post; if your host says they'll simply resell your server should you leave, that in itself should infer that you are allowed to leave before the contract is up. When they say "technically [you] are not allowed to move your site until your contract" they are simply restating what technically you cannot do, but what they are willing to overlook.

Just my take from what you've posted. :)

Some of this I reeeeally agree with, but some of it I don't. I made comments below, but what you really don't like is not the server itself, it is the cobalt OS I think. I guess I am looking at it this way, I have two servers, one a Cobalt, one is a 1U server that was built.

I am thinking of installing plesk on the other one, but if things go bad, I can't rightly say that the "server" isn't any good.

First, the processor could be better. We all know that. A given.

Cobalt Patches that create more problems than they fix (fact). You couldn't have said it better. Hard to argue this one :)

You've mentioned some echnical errors, some/all of which seem due to the buggy OS (which it is buggy, again can't argue that one).

Seriously, these servers do have some good potential. Agree, but again, I don't think it is the server that has potential, I think it is the OS that has potential, and I believe there is a difference (enough to clarify it).

Webmin has a lot of potential, it could be better... was it you who said you were working on some CP software? I think to generalize that RaQs are not good (as I have seen) is a bit errrr annoying. If you have one busy site that has outgrown virtual hosting, then it isn't a bad box to get. Add a few personal sites, etc...

I am not going to be using this for full scale hosting (though I know that some places do use them for this). Really, there are good points too, and you only listed the bad. But the ones you listed *are* valid, and I hope you understand I agree with most of it :)

Especially, that update thing... it is sooo true, I was laughing my donkey off...

The problem with cobalt Servers... is that they come with the Cobalt OS
:) thus the server is bugged. when your computer crash, do you say: windows crashed or do you say: the computer crash ?

Anyhow, the result is the same... a Cobalt server without the Cobalt OS... what is the point? :)

I say the computer crashed :D but I understand your point. I agree. Cobolt needs to stop using the proprietary (sp?) Red Hat and use something more like a standard install of 6.1 or 6.2

The other problem is since it is proprietary, you have to be carefull in what you edit. Change something and the whole interface could go down.

Of course the Alabanza route is the same. Mess with stuff without the control panel and take your chances.

we probably have Solaris on RAQs soon since Sun is gonna buy Cobalt :)

and don't forget you're better off without patches! :)