Can any body make a difference between Cobalt Raq server and High end Linux Server.

Thank you

Well, here: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=163055#post163055

-you say, "I am working in a web hosting company and my opnion is that raq is better solution comparitevely Highend Linux machine." -and now you are asking about the differences.

If you have no knowledge of the subject matter, please do not post an opinion about the matter (as I suspect it is only to boost your post count and have the signature shown).

Dear moderator(Chicken)
Yes I post the message related to linux and Cobalt .But It was just depend upon my simple knowledge and at there I didn't discuss any technical issues I just write of my views as I have knowledge for both.
But here I want to know some technical differences
like site limitation for both servers ,RAM configuration and many more such technical issues. Because I want to enhance my knowledge regarding to Cobalt server And High end Linux server .
If you think it is violation of the rules of the message board Then from next time I will be sincere to my post.

I want to say thank you for your suggestion.

Thank you

its all about the usage. and your bandwidth. You could have A: one large site that can take up the whole server, or be lots of little sites. there is not "standard" that servers go by its all a judging game. You have to put people on. monitor the usage. if your hosting sites that take up 1-5 gigs a month and its a 1ghz+ with 512+ megs of ram sure you could put 500+ sites onthe server. but that also leads to putting all your eggs in one basket.

Cobalt raq's are great little machines. they have a good source for security updates and have a large community behind them to back them up. if you were to go out and build your own server its a little harder to keep up with the updates.

All in all the cobalt raqs are the best type of servers for server farms. Very easy to create automation scripts and even create private control panels and such.

on the other hand you have custom built servers that can be used for private control panels and automation too. its all what you want to do. but all in all the cobalt raqs are one of the best systems out there.

If they would only upgrade the system processor a bit then they would be very good. They make awsome dedicated server for clients.

but then again you have the Sun Microsystems Netra X1's too these little buggers cost $995 w/ 20gig hard drives and 128mb ram? running Solaris 8 and the 500mhz 64bit sparc processor.. these are powerful little servers.. but people don't like solaris.. so thats a whole different story.

GO with the raqs they are one of the bests.

Well a high end linux server would most likely have a faster processor than an AMD K6/2 300 (RaQ3) or AMD K6/2-450 (RaQ4's), and they are also limited in ram capacity (512MB max). Generally high end linux servers will have faster processors and more ram capacity than this. More HD options (RaQs use IDE only).

They aren't meant to be power servers. They work well for some things, terrible for others. High traffic, dynamic content sites are better suited for something more powerful. If you are a web designer and want an alternative to reselling, they may be ideal. If you host small sites, or want a easy to use and maintain server for smaller sites, they might be ideal.

Dear moderator ,I want to say thanks for your valuable reply .:)

Originally posted by Chicken
Well a high end linux server would most likely have a faster processor than an AMD K6/2 300 (RaQ3) or AMD K6/2-450 (RaQ4's), and they are also limited in ram capacity (512MB max). Generally high end linux servers will have faster processors and more ram capacity than this. More HD options (RaQs use IDE only).


It's not entirely true. Although the standard configuration comes with IDE disks -- it's possible to upgrade your RaQ with SCSI disks.

Also the new RaQ XtR has better CPU and RAM options.

Originally posted by jks
It's not entirely true. Although the standard configuration comes with IDE disks -- it's possible to upgrade your RaQ with SCSI disks.

I suppose this is true, however if someone wanted a SCSI HD machine, RaQs wouldn't come to mind. I've never seen anyone offering converted RaQs for lease with SCSI HD's. I suppose you could buy one and change out the IDE, but as you said the XTR's seem to be the bridge. Not sure if they've improved the reliability of these machines, but I'm guessing they have.

Originally posted by Chicken

I've never seen anyone offering converted RaQs for lease with SCSI HD's. I suppose you could buy one and change out the IDE,


We're not talking "converted RaQs" or something very special. For example the RaQ4i and RaQ4r comes with a SCSI port - so you can just plug in your harddrives!


but as you said the XTR's seem to be the bridge. Not sure if they've improved the reliability of these machines, but I'm guessing they have.

They really have!

I have used both the old XtRs and the new ones. The old ones could be made stable by simple measurements, but it required some effort from the system administrator.

We got the one of the new XtR servers on the 14th of August, and it has been running stable ever since.

Originally posted by jks
We're not talking "converted RaQs" or something very special. For example the RaQ4i and RaQ4r comes with a SCSI port - so you can just plug in your harddrives!

Guess I had in my head the 3's, (I own one), not the 4's (I lease one). Heh, I suppose convert was too strong a word. Swap out or add would have been a better choice.

Originally posted by Chicken


Guess I had in my head the 3's, (I own one), not the 4's (I lease one). Heh, I suppose convert was too strong a word. Swap out or add would have been a better choice.

It's not only in the 4's... the RaQ3i also got a SCSI port.