Nothing comes close in price to Rackshack's $99/month 300 GB transfer dedicated plan. But the steep $250 setup fee raises a red flag with me. To me if anyone charges a huge setup fee it means they may not expect you to stay with them long. I was wondering if you guys had an input on whether they'd be likely to raise the price in the future or whether the service is just plain unsatisfactory, before I shell out $250.

Nothing comes close in price to Rackshack's $99/month 300 GB transfer dedicated plan. But the steep $250 setup fee raises a red flag with me. To me if anyone charges a huge setup fee it means they may not expect you to stay with them long. I was wondering if you guys had an input on whether they'd be likely to raise the price in the future or whether the service is just plain unsatisfactory, before I shell out $250.

Are you serious. You are questioning a $250.00 set up fee, when your monthly is $99??? Have you looked at what you get? Also, look around, almost every dedicated host has setup fees. $250.00 is nothing.

Originally posted by aling
But the steep $250 setup fee raises a red flag with me. To me if anyone charges a huge setup fee it means they may not expect you to stay with them long.
I wonder if Sun/Cobalt is giving away servers these days. Last I checked they weren't very cheap...

Setup fees aren't there to make non-refundable money off of a customer (or to scam them either). They are there to help cover the cost of the hardware and the time of a tech configuring it. Hence, the reason most setup fees are non-refundable. And on top of the generous setup fee, $99/mo! They've got one of the best deals on the internet right now.

I have no problem paying the $250 if their service is as advertised. MY question is whether it is. The fact that the fee is non-refundable reeks of underhanded business tactics. I once had a host that promised "unlimited" bandwidth only to discover it seemed to be hosted on a dsl line. No refund. Look at how large ccompanies like AOL, AT&T, Etrade, etc go out of their way, even PAYING YOU $50-100 to join because their confident you'll be satisfied. If they're charging $250 they must not be very confident you'll stay. Or at least, in the best case scenario, they're heavily in the red and trying to scrape up some quick cash before they go under.

Allera, they use Duron 1000 system's which can be built for about the $250 they charge. They should be the one's that absorb this fixed cost which comes out to $5-10/month or so. When I rent a car from Hertz for $29 a day I don't expect to pay a $20000 setup fee. I'd be perfectly happy to pay an extra $50-100/month even just for the piece of mind that they aren't making a good chunk of their profits off the setup fee. Hell, they may be losing money off the monthy fee and subsidizing it with the setup fee. It that case they have no reason to keep your service going.

Originally posted by aling
[B]I once had a host that promised "unlimited" bandwidth only to discover it seemed to be hosted on a dsl line. No refund.
If I could find a solid provider that offered unlimited bandwidth to me for one set fee and wasn't lying to me, I'd sign on the dotted line. Until then, I'll pay the hundreds of dollars per month for limited bandwidth. :)

If they're charging $250 they must not be very confident you'll stay. Or at least, in the best case scenario, they're heavily in the red and trying to scrape up some quick cash before they go under.
Or, they are trying to help pay for the server you'll be using and for the time it takes a tech to configure it for you so that they don't end up in the red and go under. :)

Well, I just saw the # available go from 10 to 9 and it got me anxious, so I was about to order one. But then I Realized I don't know the first thing about setting up a dedicated host. You say their techs have to set it up, etc. Are you talking about physically? Cause the impression I got from the salesman was that all of the configuration was up to me. How many hours you think it would take for someone with only shared hosting experience to set up a dedicated server?

What kind of server are you getting? If it's a Raq, everything is done by control panel (well, 95% of everything). If it's one of the others, the control panels take care of alot, but you need to know a little more about what you are doing.

If you have never administered a server before, I suggest getting a test one first and playing around with it. There is nothing worse than something going wrong with the server and you not having a clue as to what's wrong or how to fix it. Then you have to pay someone hefty bucks to go in and fix it for you. I would also suggest reading a lot about the services you'll be offering (Apache, DNS, Mail, etc) and the programs that are used to provide it.

The more mistakes you make on your play server, the more experience you get, the better prepared you are in the real world. No mistakes = bad. Learning from your mistakes = priceless.

I thought that everything is just setup by the tech, physically and also the software that they say is installed for you, but you configure it to how you want, such as setup DNS etc for your sites.

The setup for at $250 will cover the cost of the server, looking at it another way, you're technically co-locating the server, which would explain the low monthly fee, but with the added bonus (I think) of technical support for the servers.

Alan

Originally posted by aling
But the steep $250 setup fee raises a red flag with me.
A $250 setup fee is nothing in terms of dedicated servers.
Originally posted by aling
I have no problem paying the $250 if their service is as advertised. MY question is whether it is. The fact that the fee is non-refundable reeks of underhanded business tactics.
Underhanded business tactics? Have you been watching too many cop dramas on NBC? Price is to set it up, as mentioned, if you don't want to pay the set up, then another member offers higher monthly with no set up fees. (Same rackshack servers).
Originally posted by aling
Allera, they use Duron 1000 system's which can be built for about the $250 they charge. They should be the one's that absorb this fixed cost which comes out to $5-10/month or so. When I rent a car from Hertz for $29 a day I don't expect to pay a $20000 setup fee. I'd be perfectly happy to pay an extra $50-100/month even just for the piece of mind that they aren't making a good chunk of their profits off the setup fee. Hell, they may be losing money off the monthy fee and subsidizing it with the setup fee. It that case they have no reason to keep your service going.
Apples and Oranges. As I said, if you want no setup fee, go the other route. I won't even go into the Hertz thing.

After all that you post you don't have any experience with dedicated servers. I suggest you stay shared or go managed. You seem to think the prices are only for cheap servers you can build (which you can barely build a home computer for $250), and nothing else.

You are ignoring (or just unaware) of all the other costs that providers have, and until you realize that the server itself is not the only thing the host must provide, you should stay with shared hosting. My suggestion.

What do you mean by getting a test server to play around with?

It looks like I'll be using Ensim WEBppliance LS 3.0. This this cover everything or are there things that need to be taken care of outside of this.

My site is nothing fancy, no java, flash, or anything. All I need is password protection and possibly pennwize later, which seemed pretty easy to install.

Why not go with a virtual server first? You should probably get some sort of experience with *nix administration before you buy a dedicated server. There are lots of sites that offer virtual servers, but I would recomend one that gives you your own operating system. They may be more expensive but the experience is worth the $50-70/month. When you buy a dedicated server you will be happy you know what you're doing.

Some Example Services:

http://www.tera-byte.com
http://www.verio.com/products/hosting/comparisons/compare_vps.cfm
http://www.iserver.com/products/virtual/server_b.html
(costs almost the same as Rackshack, good for experience's sake)

I've had an adult site for over a year now and the traffic has exceeded 500 GB in some months (because of xxxpaswords.org). Was assuming that dedicated is much more complicated.

there's a difference between administering a linux dedicated server & administering a popular website. even with the RAQ, you'll have to learn at least some basic nix command line syntax. you'll also be responsible for the security of the box. these forums could help you greatly in learning about that and you should get a linux book to read up on. but nothing really helps like hands on experience.

going dedicated is much different than virtual hosting. you're basically leasing the box, the company providing it will handle the hardware (if something dies, etc. etc), reboots, initial setup (OS), and some other basic stuff. but you're respnsible for everything else. if you feel you're not ready to administer your own box or worried about security, you should definately look into a managed dedicated solution or a semi-dedicated solution. or find someone you can pay to administer your dedicated server until you feel you have enough practice / knowledge in it.

if you do get it (i'd recommend a RAQ for ease of updates and installation, unless you feel you can handle an ENSIM box from the shack) to practice on for a month or two before you move your mission critical sites over to it so you can kind of get the hang of it. also, if you do adult stuff, you're sure to want to know as much about security as possible. firewalls(ipchains), log utilities, rootkit, sendmail spam measures, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Well, I just saw the # available go from 10 to 9 and it got me anxious, so I was about to order one. But then I Realized I don't know the first thing about setting up a dedicated host.

Yet you know that a $250 set up fee is too much???

Also, you say you are going to use Ensim 3.0? To buy that software alone and install it on a server with unlimited domains is well over $250.00.

Yet you know that a $250 set up fee is too much???

I agree that the setup fee is very reasonable compared with what others charge.

But I also see the logic that a high non-refundable setup fee (no matter what service is or is not delievered) combined with a really low monthly fee might mean trouble down the road. It's not like colocating, because you don't get to keep the server if the service is not delievered, so the setup is truly non-refundable even if it is for hardware that you would like to use.

Originally posted by scott2
It's not like colocating, because you don't get to keep the server if the service is not delievered, so the setup is truly non-refundable even if it is for hardware that you would like to use.
You can't really compare it to colocation because 1) their setup fees aren't refundable anyway (not that I've seen anyway) and 2) the server is yours in the first place.

Someone else said:

"The setup for at $250 will cover the cost of the server, looking at it another way, you're technically co-locating the server, which would explain the low monthly fee, but with the added bonus (I think) of technical support for the servers."

and I was just saying that you can't really look at as you "buying" the server since you do not own the dedicated server. (and I think the same goes for the cost of the control panel solfware, since if something happens, I don't think you have a transportable license...) So it is just a setup fee - not an investment, in that if the dedicated host goes belly up or just can't provide service at the agreed level you're out the setup fee and have no equipment or anything else to show for it.

I guess the reality is that there are bad apples on both sides, and you just have to take a small gamble based on the host's reputation.

On one hand I am guessing the main reason the setup fee is not refundable (say within a 30 day gaurantee) is to protect against fraudlent customers.

But of course having a non-refundable setup fee with no 30-day or other gaurantee of performance makes it so a fradulent host could really cheat customers. (just charging the setup fee again and again for the same hardware as customers moved on because the level of service or the hardware was terrible, for example).

Let's assume they don't have those new robotic servers that jump up and install themselves in the rack. Let's also assume that the rack wasn't free and that the switch and routers that the server is plugged into cost something. Let's also assume that the server won't install all the software by itself and configure itself once it jumps into the rack. We should also assume that the facility, power, backup power, a/c, etc., etc., etc. isn't free and that support personnel (those ones people contact when they have problems), don't work for free, and that the low monthly fees (low enough that it wouldn't even cover the bandwidth offered), might justify a $250 setup fee. No, I don't work for them.

More than the just the server cost goes into a setup fee.

Chicken - it's not necessarily the amount of the setup fee that I'm skeptical about - just the fact that with an Intel server from RS for example the setup is $500 which is 5 months of hosting. Now I'm assuming the software is mirrored so that would take about, what, a dozen keystrokes to reset a server to the default, and then they could resell it right where it is on the rack without even touching the actual server. I don't think there's anything "customized" for an individual customer for these $100 servers. The concern is simply that the way you're paying $500 up front and then just $100 a month, if performance or service or hardware isn't good, it could be more profitable form them to just say "get lost, we'll find another person to fill your spot" than to provide good service for the continuing income.

Which would be a better motive to keep a customer?
1.) $500 up front and $99 a month
2.) $0 up front and $140 a month

Both yield the same profit over the year, but in #2 the host has an investment in keeping the customer happy and supplying hardware which will hold up in the long term. I know there's someone reselling RS servers with the #2 setup, but since he's a reseller not the host I don't see how that would influence the level of service/network performance/etc.

As far as paying a setup fee because things have to be "set up" - where would that end? Would I also pay a percentage of their new DS3 line installation, or for painting their building so my servers will in the future be dry? Should I pay a "setup fee" for their time interviewing a new employee who will then be available to work on my server if it crashes? My argument is that costs can go into either the setup fee or the monthly fee, whatever the costs are. I’m just worried that getting more money up front than for a half year of service might encourage bad service or really cheap hardware in the server itself.

And since the server is already purchased and placed, it might be more profitable to chrun customers than to keep them.

Which would be a better motive to keep a customer?
1.) $500 up front and $99 a month
2.) $0 up front and $140 a month


^ That reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine. If you colocate or offer dedicated boxes without a setup fee, theres no incentive for the customer to stay, and my friend had a "customer" that prooved that point. He was offering at the time a nice colocation deal with 0$ setup and you didn't pay till the end of the first month (to ensure customer satisfaction, double payment first month). Anyhow, he had some guy send in a low end pentium for colocation, and somehow it slipped by unnoticed, the person was setup, and burst 10mbit (his full link) that night and into the day for almost 24 hours before he was caught and unhooked, he has no investement in the 50$ server he shipped in, they didn't want to bill him (because anyone can call VISA reverse the charges and make you look really bad), and they couldn't do anything to him. The long and the short is, customer was out 50$, colocation company was out hundreds (for all the bandwidth used). Setup fee's more importantly then anything else are retainers, not only to keep your customers in line from trying anything funny, but also to keep them from switching providers.

Originally posted by aling
Allera, they use Duron 1000 system's which can be built for about the $250 they charge. They should be the one's that absorb this fixed cost which comes out to $5-10/month or so. When I rent a car from Hertz for $29 a day I don't expect to pay a $20000 setup fee. I'd be perfectly happy to pay an extra $50-100/month even just for the piece of mind that they aren't making a good chunk of their profits off the setup fee. Hell, they may be losing money off the monthy fee and subsidizing it with the setup fee. It that case they have no reason to keep your service going.

Please show me where I can get a good 1U server for this price. Hell if you find me a solid 1U server I can buy brand new for twice this price I'll give you a $50 finders fee.

They don't use 1U servers - they use towers.

Originally posted by aling
I have no problem paying the $250 if their service is as advertised. MY question is whether it is. The fact that the fee is non-refundable reeks of underhanded business tactics. I once had a host that promised "unlimited" bandwidth only to discover it seemed to be hosted on a dsl line. No refund. Look at how large ccompanies like AOL, AT&T, Etrade, etc go out of their way, even PAYING YOU $50-100 to join because their confident you'll be satisfied. If they're charging $250 they must not be very confident you'll stay. Or at least, in the best case scenario, they're heavily in the red and trying to scrape up some quick cash before they go under.

Well I suppose your assessment of the "way of the web" could be correct.. but I think not in this case.

RackShack offers really low monthly fees and offsets this and the lack of a contract requirement with a higher setup fee. It's their business model, not a rip off.

If they were in financial trouble, I seriously doubt they would have moved from a relatively cheap colo setup to a recently acquired fully equiped datacenter.

EV1 and RackShack are one of the few profitable server hosts right now.

Look around, in an industry that is shrinking and cutting back on data centers (which incidently is how RS got their new one for really cheap) RS is growing, in leaps and bounds..

Nope.. not a rip off.. good product, very good prices..

A happy RS customer
Shortness

Okay, maybe it isn't like co-locating, LOL, but I was just using the idea that the $250 covers the dedicated server itself AND also have some left over for other costs. But with the $99 a month fee, that covers the other running costs very well, since the bandwidth is being provided by their parent company, it's either free to RS or they only pay SO little that it doesn't cost that much. I've got nothing wrong with RS, I'm going to probably get a server or even two from there in the future, just waiting for them to settle in, in their new datacenter and also raise the support standards.

Alan

One thing that continues to annoy me about these forums (and the reason I participate infrequently here - in addition to the fact that I am just plain ignorant) is the tone with which "newbies" are treated.

To all those oh so knowledgable sysops here who feel it is a crime to be a newbie or inexperienced - where you born with the knowledge of how to program shell scripts?

Yes, it is agreed that $250 is not much for set up and around the industry standard levels. However, when coming accross a deal that is *very* cheap, and considering that the OP has little experience or knowledge of dedicated hosting, the OP was very sensible to question with some skepticism the overall deal. Rackshack.net's pricing is very much at the low end of the market - who has ever heard of 300GB for $100? Has everyone forgotten the pogolinux saga from last year (forgot what the venture they were in was called)?

I am not making any aspersions (sp?) about rackshack in those comments. After having kept up to date with the discussions here about rackshack.net over 2001 I have made this personal conclusion: They seem to have a very decent network, seem to be a stable company, but seem to lack in the area of having skilled and responsive techinical support.

It is quite likely that I will grab one of their servers in the future (if their current value pricing still exists) for various things such as secondary DNS hosting, mail server, redundant backup server, certain accounts, etc.

If I were running an adult site that was consuming 500GB of transfer a month, I would most definitely look at using a rackshack linux server.

However, to the OP, I would be cautious about proceding with rackshack.net as a complete newbie because I don't think you will get the level of support you will need. As others have said you might need to find a managed server solution. However, if you are needing 500GB transfer a month, you should be able to negotiate a reasonable price per GB - maybe even around $1 per GB - I don't know.

Again to the OP, the suggestion of getting a server to play around with means just that. Perhaps grab a rackshack server and play with it. Put some friends sites on it, or some other less commercially important sites of your own on their, and take a couple of months to get to learn the server, linux, and how your control panel works, how to back-up and restore your data, etc.

This is what I have done myself. I got a server with Pegasus when they had that $129 a month server deal. For the first three months I used it as a development server because I had never managed a server before, and had to customis it heavily for a web application it is now hosting. If you do not have a managed dedicated server (and they are expensive - you pay for the extra support) then you are on your own. You are expected to update the kernel, install security patches, keep on top of security and bug alerts, etc, etc yourself. It is a small amount of regulare work that requires some experience.

I was just using the idea that the $250 covers the dedicated server itself AND also have some left over for other costs.

With all due respect, I think you are a bit off on the pricing of things. I'm sure if you buy in large volume, things are cheaper than if you only buy one unit but I think you're figures don't add up very well here. You're figuring in the total cost of the server hardware *and* software license fees, right?

But with the $99 a month fee, that covers the other running costs very well, since the bandwidth is being provided by their parent company, it's either free to RS or they only pay SO little that it doesn't cost that much.

This is way off also. How can you think that nobody has to pay for the bandwidth? Even if it came from the parent company, that company pays for it, the $$ to pay for that bandwidth don't come out of thin air. $99 a month leaves a very thin profit margin for RS, regardless of how they pay for their bandwidth.

No disrespect intended in my statements but I think you need to recalculate the math in your thinking.

The dollar for what you get ratio at RS is high, very high. Do you need to manage your own server there? Very much so yes. Is this any different than anywhere else? Not at all I think.

I know someone who uses Verio, not only do they pay over twice what I pay, they pay a rather stiff hourly rate to get the things done that I have taken the time to learn myself. Could that person survive in the RS envrionment? Maybe not if RS does not offer a per hour support system.

But let's look at what I get and what I had to do to get it versus what the other person gets.

Me: $149. per month, 1-20 gig hd, 1-30 gig hd, 512mb RAM, 300gig transfer, RaQ4i, remote reboot port.

him: Over $300. per month (before support costs), I'm not sure on the drive/drives but much less than what I've got, 128mb RAM, I belive something like 30 or 50gig transfer, RaQ3i, no remote reboot port.

What did I have to do to have this? Spend the hours needed to learn the amount that I've learned to be able to keep my box running and fairly secure. I might add, mostly with the support of this list, the list at RS and the Cobalt list. Very little with the help of books.

I think the above scenario about covers what you get/pay for in this business. RS is a damn good deal, *godamn* good.. Why people continually seem to feel the need to bash at this company is completely beyond me!

I've had a few connectivity problems there during and since we moved to the new datacenter, nothing earth shattering, or likely any worse than anywhere else I'd be at. Downtime, like... that other substance, happens. Period.. Everywhere... No BS from anyone about *true* 100% uptime, never happens. And what is 99.9% uptime? Do the math... 99% uptime allows a host almost 4 full days a year to be "offline" 99.9% something in the neighborhood of 12 hours a year...

So far, with RS, I've only seen about 3.5 hrs downtime during the move and a few minutes from the infamous "screwdriver incident" the other day.. They are certainly within the window.

Now don't anybody get the 99.9% uptime guarantees mixed up with 99.9% uptime guarantee for any given box... that is network uptime my friend. If you are on a self-managed box, no host in their right mind is going to guarantee your individual box will be up for that same amount of time. You might get such a guarantee with a fully managed box but how much per month will you pay for that sucker...? I guarantee you that it will not be $99. per month!

So everyone, quit griping about a good deal. If you have the skills or determination to learn a few things, you can manage your own box. If you don't, then you better be making enough money to cover a managed box, or go to work at McDonalds and stay out of this business.

Shortthrufortheday

Well I now agree with you, shortfork. So we're basically calling the plans at RS 'Self-Managed Hosting', which I agree, but with all their cheap hardware, they get a lot of hardware problems which need to be solved by the tech. I've read many people running into hardware problems when they get the server for the first time, or that the server has many errors due to the installation.

Has anyone tried to remove everything and start from scratch, I mean get a copy of Red Hat Linux and install it and then install all the software, such as Apache, PHP etc onto the server?

If I can get a 'normal' server then I would really like to go with them too. But I think their Plesk package is okay if not.

Alan

Set up a Rackshack affilliate account and they will pay you $50 for each sign up.
Then sign yourself up ..........

Hey presto: the $250 becomes $200

Gordon

Originally posted by ho247
I've read many people running into hardware problems when they get the server for the first time, or that the server has many errors due to the installation.

Has anyone tried to remove everything and start from scratch, I mean get a copy of Red Hat Linux and install it and then install all the software, such as Apache, PHP etc onto the server?

If I can get a 'normal' server then I would really like to go with them too. But I think their Plesk package is okay if not.

Alan

Alan,

Yea, I've read some having problems with the Plesk and Ensim boxes but I'm not sure it's hardware/software related or simply the fact that those boxes are MAJOR league different than the RaQ's the most of the guys moving to them have come from. (likely a combination of both)

This is why I stayed with the less powerful RaQ4i that I have there. I'm simply not ready for the hassle of dealing with my server any deeper than I currently do.

My situation is somewhat different, in that I'm not selling space to anyone other than those I develop and manage sites for, so I don't really need the extra power.

I don't believe that currently RS has a plain, non cp based OS available but I think that is coming.

The "vanilla" boxes that they are offering now (Plesk and Ensim) are a relitively new offering for them and what you are seeing, in my honest opinion, is a teething process between the tech people there, who are used to Cobalts, and the clients there who are moving to the new boxes, who are also used to Cobalts.

Granted there are hardware problems and software problems on some machines.. Any time you have 3000 servers, there are going to be problems on some of them, even with the most expensive hardware. So you would expect to see some problems. (unfortunately, hardly anyone who is NOT having problems posts messages to say "gee... my server is humming along sweet")

I've run a RaQ3 and now a 4i for just about 18 months and other than getting hit by the bind hack a year ago, it's been smooth sailing. That is.. as long as I don't sit there and fret watching all the connect attempts against my firewall! :bawling:

Bottom line is though, get past the setup fees at RS and stay there for a year or longer and you have an outstanding value. Even if you only stayed a few months (why, with all the hassle of moving a server, anyone would want to do that) you still get a good price/value combination. And not having to worry about bandwidth up to 300gb is VERY nice.

I'm not anywhere near my limit monthly but am quite near or over most other bw limits. Not having that as a concern and having 50 gigs of disk to play with gives me a lot of leeway with my own site and those that I develop and manage. I simply don't have to be limiting with my clients, within reason of course.

Shrortness

Some of you mentioned adult sites. I was under the impression that adult sites weren't permitted on Rackshack servers?

i believe they are going to re-do their AUP when they get more gig-e connectivity. you might want to check on the rackshack forums for a real answer on that though.

Originally posted by GordonH
Set up a Rackshack affilliate account and they will pay you $50 for each sign up.
Then sign yourself up ..........

Hey presto: the $250 becomes $200

Gordon unfortunately rackshack.net has certain ip ranges banned for the sign up form and have a down page asking them to fax their sign up forms.. i confirmed my dynamic ip is in the banned range :(

Sorry, I couldn't find this thread earlier, and it *is* a bit old (so contact him and ask if it is still valid):

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28624&highlight=rackshack

doesn't 99servers.com or something like that offer a hosting solution with rackshack like this?

Yeah, actually that is the link above (didn't check did ya' ;) ?) and what I was talking about earlier in the thread. I didn't mean to come down hard, just enlighten the thread poster to some additional costs that hosts have to incur besides the server cost.

oh, duh. i DID check the first time, honestly, i thought it was the person who first posted something like that however. i think this was a month or so ago about how he spoke with headsurfer, yadda yadda...

anywho...

Originally posted by GordonH
Set up a Rackshack affilliate account and they will pay you $50 for each sign up.
Then sign yourself up ..........

Hey presto: the $250 becomes $200

Gordon

You're kidding?

hahaha that rules.

through the order form but are unable to due to the IP restriction just go through a proxy. Thats what we did. There are tons out there that offer trials.

note: Anonymizer wont work because they dont do SSL pages.

cheers

Just as a side note; you can use vmware (www.vmware.com) and create a 'virtual machine' on your pc and install redhat + plesk to test out almost exactly what you'd be dealing with a rackshack box if you're worried about server admin things. VMWare runs in demo mode for 30 days (which is long enough to test things), Plesk has a free download for a one-domain licence (which is all you need to test really) and redhat is, of course, free. (I'd suggest getting 7.1 instead of the most current version 7.2. Rackshack's plesk and enism boxes use redhat 7.1)

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is that the setup price is also a way to make sure that people who sign up have thought it over.

If there was no $ 499.- setup fee on the Rackshack servers I'm sure they would be swamped with people who rent one of them darn things without having the faintest idea how it all works, bugging the hell out of RS support for a month and then cancel their account. Maybe even sign up again 1.5 months later or so.

When you rent a server and pay $ 499.- non refundalbe setup fee you do not quit after a month.

No doubt, and you do NOT jump in it without thinking first!