I think I was one of the first to sign up for the new RackShack White Linux Box with 300 GB transfer and I am ready to share my first experiences for the benefit of the readers of this forum.

I got 1 GHz Intel Pentium III processor based machine with 512 MB RAM and 2x40 GB hard disks with 200-domain license of Plesk installed for $645.70 ($499 setup fee becomes $540.17 with taxes + $99 for the first month becomes $105.53 with taxes).

During the signup process, in post-signup e-mail and on member's pages RackShack keeps calling those systems "RaQs" - don't worry, they are not. As usual with RackShack, the setup is instant, and less than a minute after I signed up, I got the "welcome" e-mail.

First thing you notice, the URL for the control panel provided in "welcome" e-mail (http://{ipaddress}/admin/) does not work. This URL is a relict left from RaQs era. To save you some reading of Plesk documentation I can tell you that correct URL for Plesk control panel is:

https://{ipaddress}:8443/

Control panel's setup is straightforward. RackShack put a copy of Plesk documentation on its own site, but RackShack's default very small font size makes it impossible to read (this font size is not easy to change - your browser have to be set to 'ignore font sizes specified on web pages', which completely screws up RackShack's design). I suggest you to get a copy of documentation from Plesk site: plesk.com/html/products/psa/doc.htm.

The first thing I did when I got the server I rebooted it. The time of hardware part of server reboot (i.e. the time between the last log entry before the reboot and the first log entry after the reboot) was just 1 minute 40 seconds:Nov 22 08:35:15 plesk exiting on signal 15
Nov 22 08:36:55 plesk syslogd 1.4-0: restart.The operating system you get is RH Linux 7.1:Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf)
Kernel 2.4.2-2 on an i686The disks are indeed 2x40 GB:Nov 22 08:36:56 plesk kernel: hda: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=4982/255/63, UDMA(100)
Nov 22 08:36:56 plesk kernel: hdc: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=79408/16/63, UDMA(100)With Plesk installed, of 2x40 GB disks you get 5.4 + 29 = 34.4 GB free on the first one and 35 GB free on the second one:[admin@plesk admin]$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 5.8G 71M 5.4G 2% /
/dev/hda6 31G 802M 29G 3% /usr
/dev/hdc1 38G 20k 35G 1% /home2The difference in disk sizes you see is caused by the fact that disk manufacturers assume 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1000000 KB etc., and Linux assumes 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB etc.

By default openssh-server is not installed, and openssh-clients and common openssh versions are old: [admin@plesk admin]$ rpm -qa | grep openssh
openssh-clients-2.5.2p2-5
openssh-2.5.2p2-5If you want securely login to your server with ssh, you need to fetch and install openssh-server from redhat's ftp site. I also upgraded my installations of openssh-clients and openssh itself:[root@plesk admin]# rpm -U openssh-2.9p2-8.7.i386.rpm
[root@plesk admin]# rpm -U openssh-clients-2.9p2-8.7.i386.rpm
[root@plesk admin]# rpm -U openssh-server-2.9p2-8.7.i386.rpmUse it on your own risk! I had to reboot again to make sshd work. If you are not familiar with Linux, stick to Plesk and don't upgrade openssh.

The speed of file download to the server is average by RackShack's standards:[admin@plesk admin]$ wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
09:10:49 (211.22 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]Usually I get from 150 to 550 KB/s when using my other 2 RackShack's servers. Internal transfer speed between this server and other 2 servers I have with RackShack is 250 - 350 KB/s (4 hops). I guess the reason the internal speed is so low is becase the new server is located in new RackShack's building and the old servers (Cobalt RaQs) are located in old RackShack facility.

If you want to test download speed from the new server, you can download this file: http://216.40.246.2/uumap.tar.Z.

That's it so far. I have to go to read Plesk documentation now - it is a bit different from Cobalt RaQ control panel ;)

320 kB/s from my catalog.com server, but only 50 kB/s from Weinbar (I can download uumap.tar.Z from ftp.uu.net at 700+ kB/s from Weinbar...).

Traceroute shows that routing is currently through Time Warner, but I think it will be switched to Cogent soon (?).

How many ips do you get

I also have been trying to figure out everything with them

Are they going total cogent.

If they are then, it makes sense

Also what are the specs on the server, more like what parts and what not

Joe

hi

do you know how much is the upgrade cost of plesk software from 200 domains to unlimited domains ?. i searched there faq but found no info.

:)

Think RackShack is sticking to its one IP policy unless you have a good reason for another IP. They are not total Cogent, they have a few other backbones but there biggest pipe is a 1 Gigabit Cogent.

About the parts that go into the server, who knows.

They are not giving a bad deal, but they are easily making money on this

You can get low end server pretty cheap now, and with cogent, overall its still a solid deal, but nothing crazy

I would like to know the parts in the servers

Joe

Originally posted by mahinder
do you know how much is the upgrade cost of plesk software from 200 domains to unlimited domains ?. i searched there faq but found no info. I saw the number $200 or $250 tossed around in the forum there...don't remember which of those it was. But neither of those is a bad price for the upgrade.

We are NOT going totally Cogent. Cogent represents only 1 of our 5 links, although it is currently the largest. Next week we will turn up a Gig-E to yet another provider giving us 2.5 Gbps of network capacity. The second Gig-e is to a different provider, not Cogent and will be announced when it is up.

We are in the process of migrating our networks so traffic will be shaped in different manners until that process si complete.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net

dabystru, thanks for sharing your experience.

Peter

Originally posted by JBIZ718
How many ips do you getBy default, one, but you can ask for more. I heard that first 4 IPs are free. Actually, on another RackShack server I use 5 IP addresses and I don't pay anything extra. I don't remember if I paid any setup fee to get those 5 IP addresses, but I don't pay any additional monthly fees for them.

Now the parts question

Are they high end parts of what

Are any of the carriers going to be tier 1

UUnet, level3, sprint, genuity, c&w, at&t

In looking more into rackshack, i came across this

http://www.rackshack.net/colo/updates.asp

I found it interesting that these amd machines are in tower cases. I know from talking to my techs that you can build some very cheap systems for between 4-500 in a tower. I mean Dell even has some stuff in the sub 600 range.

My big question is this.

Is this the hardware that hosting should be done off of.

I have personally never used rackshack and now really never would even for a play server. Sorry I thought hardware was still important. Even though I dont have the exact specs on parts, mid towers for hosting, not too impressive. I use mid towers in my office not for hosting..

Joe

Mine still doesn't work. It's been 3 hours now and even after i put in http://ip:8443/ it doesn't work. it says Cannot find server and the IP alone gives me this

This is the Plesk Server Administrator™ default page.
If you see this page it means:

1) hosting for this domain is not configured
or
2) there's no such domain registered in Plesk.

For more information please contact rackshack@customer.com

Originally posted by MrLister
i put in http://ip:8443/ it doesn't work Did you try https://ip:8443/ (not http://ip:8443/)?

Originally posted by JBIZ718
mid towers for hosting, not too impressiveI don't really understand your concerns. Why do you care? The only reason people use 1U servers for hosting is because the space in datacenters is pricy, and initially paying more for 1U server than for mini-tower server pays back quickly, as you can place 4 1U cases in place of one mini-tower case.

If RackShack got new datacenter where they are not limited by space and can place mini-tower boxes - great, why not? At the end of the day, you don't have to service them - RackShack have to - so why to be concerned? Yes, RackShack's setup fee probably covers most of machine's cost - that's fine with me, as long as monthly fee stays at $99 level.

Yeah, but at $499, that's almost half a year of service.

I find it sad (and yet funny) that Joe (JBIZ718) always points out something that he deems bad about another company. In this case, servers in tower cases. (I guess he got tired of his Cogent excuse.) Why are you doing it Joe? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I always see these types of posts from you.

Tower case servers are pretty much the same as servers in 1U or 2U cases. If anything, tower cases are better because they allow for more air to flow through the machine. I'm sure there are some differences, but when it comes down to the processor, memory, and hard drive, they're the same.

It be nice if the setup fee was averaged into the monthly cost, so for the base AMD machine it be $150 USD a month no setup fee instead of $300 Setup and $99 a month.

Rackshack should allow IRC servers though, thats a pet peeve I have with them. With a 2.5 Gigabit Backbone (Soon to come) Flooding poses alot less of a danger.

I am going to continue to go eat, and too be honest I really dont care at all.

Also you may deem it as bad, but most of the time it is making people aware of whats actually going on. I care about customers and there are many that come here. I think it would be better if companies that come on here and post bring more information to the table, and would answer many questions. In regards to arguments with people about 'unlimited' stuff, unlimited in general is misleading and needs to be stopped...


I am not going to waste my time anymore on rackshack topics, its just not worth it...

have a good holiday

Joe

I wish there were no setup fee (okay, $99 is fine), that'll make alot of people :D


With regards to the tower case argument. J has a valid point.

U-cases are fastened down to a rack, of which the rack is also secured to something.

Tower cases are usually placed loosely on a shelf, of which a shelf is very seldom secured to anything.

You don't want your server to get bumped while the tech tries to put another server on the shelf as it could cause hardware problems, and or maybe if the knock was fierce enough, your server could land up on the floor; or perhaps someone happens to accidently knock the shelf and boom all the servers land up on the floor. Can you imagine? Earthquake!

I have no idea what type of shelf setup rackshack has. Let's hope their servers and shelves aren't setup this way.

I think everyone will agree that Rackspace is a great host, probably one of the best.

Has anyone seen the AMD/Rackspace ads? The Rackspace servers are mid towers put on industrial shelving.

If you are concerned about how the servers are installed, just look at the pics as mentioned above.

IMHO, the tower case is superior for cooling but the rack mounts are superior when space is your primary concern.

Robert Marsh
Head Surfer Rackshack.net

Originally posted by JBIZ718
I have personally never used rackshack and now really never would even for a play server. Sorry I thought hardware was still important. Even though I dont have the exact specs on parts, mid towers for hosting, not too impressive. I use mid towers in my office not for hosting..


Your comment does not make sense ... How much different is there between tower server and rackmount server? I can get it as little as only $140 difference. What does case has anything to do with server? It even provides even better cooling, especially for AMD CPUs .... I am kinda wonderring now, what kind of hardware do you usually use for your rackmounts?

Anyway, I don't get your point. Rackshack is giving 300GB for $99, it's pretty darn good deal since they not only use Cogent but BGP4 with other providers ... Forget about the hardware (let's talk colo), that $99/mo is worthed for the amount of bandwith they give. You can think of the setup fees as going partly, if not wholly, for the server building.

Way to go, rackshack ... Where is your colo deal? :D

cheers,
:beer:

Can you imagine? Earthquake!

With an earthquake, even if the server is secured it could shear from any kind of mounting, or even if it didn't the vibrations could kill a hard drive.. Not to mention when earthquakes happen they usually release magnetic interfearence that could corupt data, thats why you rarely see videos of earthquakes.....

I don't know if the magnetic problem is purely because of the earthquake, but as I've been told in many of my classes that would be the cause....

Originally posted by will5404
Rackshack should allow IRC servers though, thats a pet peeve I have with them. With a 2.5 Gigabit Backbone (Soon to come) Flooding poses alot less of a danger.

I believe on the new unmetered 10mbit connections they will.

Originally posted by Justin S
I find it sad (and yet funny) that Joe (JBIZ718) always points out something that he deems bad about another company. In this case, servers in tower cases. (I guess he got tired of his Cogent excuse.) Why are you doing it Joe? I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I always see these types of posts from you.

Tower case servers are pretty much the same as servers in 1U or 2U cases. If anything, tower cases are better because they allow for more air to flow through the machine. I'm sure there are some differences, but when it comes down to the processor, memory, and hard drive, they're the same.

humm, once he (JBIZ718) defended rackshack... :D:D:D
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10742&highlight=rackshack

Insulting
Cabal

You really should not be degrating someone elses services to promote yours.

Believe me, people can dig up information on your company as well.

I think if rackshack has 3k servers they are doing just fine.

Just read the forum rules, as it bans stuff like this.

Joe


__________________
INTENSEinfo.com - 1%+ Uptime Gauranteed (j/k)
Powering INTENSE Web Solutions
Proud to soon launch: The Best Web Host Directory
"What we do in Life, Echoes in Eternity" - - Gladiator

Last edited by JBIZ718 on 05-13-2001 at 05:28 AM


not to be mean or anything, it is just such a flip I found it intresting...

Joe will be given his final warning regarding posting negative comments about competitors at WHT. It doesn't matter that they use Cogent (even if it were 100%), if they use mid tower cases, etc., so long as they aren't misrepresenting themselves on the forum. I want to make it clear that I wish people would report this instead of comment on it, so that it could be removed from the forum more easily. It will not be allowed to continue.

I have personally never used rackshack and now really never would even for a play server. Sorry I thought hardware was still important. Even though I dont have the exact specs on parts, mid towers for hosting, not too impressive. I use mid towers in my office not for hosting..


Joe, Care to tell me the differences in using Tower servers and Rackmounted servers ? I would love to learn from you regarding this issue as I am starting my own server hosting very soon.

Midi Towers are much better cases overall. If secured well, then I would go for these over a 1u case anyday, as they provide much more space for the air to flow through more freely, keeping the cpu and hdd's cool.
They also, obviously, have much more space inside, making them easier to upgrade, and cheaper, because you don't have to purchase low profile parts.

Joe's argument is flawed, he states that you could build one of these machines for around $500 - so? I wouldn't expect a $3000 server for this kind of monthly price.

He also states that RackShack would be making a steady profit on this deal - of course they will make a profit, they won't be offering machines at a loss.

Regards
Matt

The only posts that I will make on these boards is for advertising purposes.

Other then that, the character of this board is nothing I want to do with anymore

Its that simple

Joe

To Rackshack,

hey, how about installing webcams (like Communitech) in your building?

Originally posted by JBIZ718
the character of this board is nothing I want to do with anymoreI find this board very helpful, informative and fun :D to read. It saves time and money and inspires new ideas. I just don't see any other source of information (look what a shame alt.www.webmaster newsgroup became), which stands close to WebHostingTalk. Thank you!

Just so everyone knows our service comes with 8 free IPs including your initial one, we ask for justification for documentation purposes.

Thanks,

Patrick Smith

Originally posted by Patrick-EV1
our service comes with 8 free IPsThank you for clarification. Can you share how much are additional IP addresses (beyond 8)?

Originally posted by dabystru
[B]The disks are indeed 2x40 GB:Nov 22 08:36:56 plesk kernel: hda: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=4982/255/63, UDMA(100)
Nov 22 08:36:56 plesk kernel: hdc: 80043264 sectors (40982 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=79408/16/63, UDMA(100)With Plesk installed, of 2x40 GB disks you get 5.4 + 29 = 34.4 GB free on the first one and 35 GB free on the second one:[admin@plesk admin]$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 5.8G 71M 5.4G 2% /
/dev/hda6 31G 802M 29G 3% /usr
/dev/hdc1 38G 20k 35G 1% /home2Hmmm...doesn't Plesk put all user data in /usr/local/psa/? What would the 35GB in /home2 be used for??

Originally posted by Rehan
Hmmm...doesn't Plesk put all user data in /usr/local/psa/?

it depends, we have both early and newer versions of Plesk v2 and the early version Plesk v2 stores all user files in /home while the newer one is in /usr. so, we made a bigger partition for /home for the early release and bigger partition for /usr on the newer release.

Originally posted by JBIZ718
mid towers for hosting, not too impressive. I use mid towers in my office not for hosting..


Could you explain to me what difference the case makes?

Shortness

I PS on this.. I just went to "Joe's" website.. I guess that RS will probably generate a lot of resentment from its competitors... They are turning the pricing of this stuff on its ear..

It would appear that Marsh has figured out how to offer superior products and services at a rock bottom price that should look attractive to many levels of customers. 99bucks for a one gig server? Amazing...

I left my former host because they had forgotten the bottom line for clients and began thinking of their own bottom line. Base server price went from high to way to high. The only thing there that went down was service.

If Marsh and his company are successful at what they are doing, how can anyone charge more and stay in business?

Originally posted by Rehan
What would the 35GB in /home2 be used for?? I can think of at least 2 possible ways to use the second hard disk, you can think of more I guess:

1) Use it for backup purposes. Run a backup script daily which will do tar cfz (c for create) or tar ufz (u for update) of all your data on the first disk to the file on the second disk.

2) Using smart sym-linking (ln -s) make the use of the space on the second hard drive when the first one is low on space. I did not try it myself, but I think moving few large sites to the second hard disk and creating sym links from Plesk's vhosts directory should work.

Thanks, dabystru. I figured those two options were available, but I was hoping there was a better way to make use of the second drive than to jump through hoops to salvage that space.

Is it possibly to configure the second drive as a RAID 1 mirror after Plesk and all else has been installed by RackShack?

RackShack's connectivity is very good.

I got 2.5MB/sec downloading RedHat 7.2 iso files (600+ meg each) onto my second harddrive. It went so fast I could hear the data whistling in onto the drive.

I'm glad I hooked up with RackShack. Patrick is a really good guy and all the folks I've deal with are very helpful. My ONLY gripe is the OS on my server and that gripe ticks me off to no end. Otherwise, it's a top-drawer deal. If they'd fix the OS install, then it'd be perfect (well, as close as Texans are going to get it).

:D

Originally posted by Dylan
Can you imagine? Earthquake!


Now you have to remember..this is Texas, not California...most of us don't even know what an earthquake is.

I'm a little confused. Say the HDD manufactors consider 1GB to be 1000MB, instead of 1024MB. Do they also consider 1MB to be 1000000 bytes? If this is the case, my calculations show that about 37.25GB should be avail on each disk? Yet, the post above mentions only 35GB?


Thanks.

PJS

Originally posted by pjs
my calculations show that about 37.25GB should be avail on each disk? Yet, the post above mentions only 35GB?[admin@plesk admin]$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1 5.8G 71M 5.4G 2% /
/dev/hda6 31G 802M 29G 3% /usr
/dev/hdc1 38G 20k 35G 1% /home2Actually, if you look at the size of /dev/hdc1 partition (the entire second drive), you will see it is 38 GB, not 35 GB. If you add up the sizes of first hard drive partitions (/dev/hda1 is 5.8 GB and /dev/hda6 is 31 GB) you get 36.8 GB, which is just 1.2 GB less than 38 GB. I guess the remaining 1 GB is used for swap partition (which is not shown), and 0.2 GB are lost because of rounding up the figures.

Originally posted by JBIZ718

I have personally never used rackshack and now really never would even for a play server. Sorry I thought hardware was still important. Even though I dont have the exact specs on parts, mid towers for hosting, not too impressive. I use mid towers in my office not for hosting..


It's always fun to see hosting newbies post FUD. Servers in towers are far superrior to those in rackmounts for a number of reasons.

1) The cooling is SO much better. With the ability of have four or five 80mm fans pushing serious CFM's through a case cooling is a non-issue

2) expandability -- using a mid-tower even offers you the ability to add four, five or maybe even six hard drives...a 1U rackmount won't do that

3) power -- rackmount servers often give you the bare-minimum you need in power-output whereas a tower can be loaded with an enourmous (hot) power supply that cranks out over 460watts (for those dual-athlons!)

Keep your trolling to a miniumum and get some clue(8) before spreading FUD please.

greetz,
davidu

That is pretty much obvious. The only disadvantage about towers is that they almost always carry heftier price for colo.