Hello Everyone,

I am looking ahead to go for a RaQ3 Server (300 MHz x86 Processor) with 256 Ram, 20GB Hard Disk, 60GB Bandwith and Linux 2.2 multitasking OS.

What do you suggest if we compare it with

AMD 1GHz, 256 Ram, 40GB Hard Disk, 60GB Bandwith and Linux 7.1 OS.

Which one can be a better chioce?

basically my purpose is hosting multiple sites.


Pls. Reply,

Regards,

K.Nizam

Well, which one do you think is better?

300Mhz older generation processor or 1000Mhz newer generation processor?

cheers,
:beer:

Hehehehe.
I really get tickled about some of the posts here.

:eek2: :eek2: This question serious? 1 Ghz vs. 300 mhz... :eek2: :eek2:

Defenity wouldn't go for the raq, and defenitly not for a raq 3 at that, at least go for a raq 4 if you want a raq, but from what I've learned from others in the last few weeks, personally I would stay away from raqs. Maybe it's just me :rolleyes:

Originally posted by dektong
Well, which one do you think is better?

300Mhz older generation processor or 1000Mhz newer generation processor?

cheers,
:beer:

The 300Mhz K6-II gets my vote! :D

Just joking, the 1Ghz machine will knock the socks of a Raq3.

Come on, nizam, you can post again.
We're just giving you a hard time.

RAQ3 will be around 8-10 times slower than 1Ghz AMD system with DDR memory.

To be fair, nizam may have been confused with the fact Sun is now the owner of Cobalt. As Sun's SPARC offerings can not be compared to Intel/AMD on a MHz to MHz basis, he may have thought the same was true with RAQ's.

Although, he did say the RAQ had an x86 processor in it, so maybe he's just totally confused. ;)

Originally posted by nizam
Hello Everyone,

Which one can be a better chioce?

basically my purpose is hosting multiple sites.



This depends on what kind of sites they are going to be.

Example: Our server farm gives us 1 RaQ2 for every RaQ4 we rent, all we have to do is pay for bandwidth. For serving static web sites one of our RaQ2's has actually maxed out a 10mb connection for over an hour (over $500 in bandwidth fees unfortunately). However, the RaQ2 could not host some of the large e-com sites we host because of all the processing involved. Overkill is always fun, but getting the right tool for the job is always better. :cool:

Originally posted by bhalsted

connection for over an hour (over $500 in bandwidth fees

Ponder, now that I think about it, the $500 mark doesn't make sense for that time frame.. but "the little RaQ that could" pushed 9.2 Mb/s for over an hour.. An all time high for our RaQ's.

Originally posted by bhalsted


now that I think about it, the $500 mark doesn't make sense for that time frame..

Yeah, 10 Mbps for one hour is less than 5 GB.

Originally posted by energy

Yeah, 10 Mbps for one hour is less than 5 GB.

I'd shoot myself if we ever pay $100/GB for bandwidth. But I'd love to find someone to purchase that. :D

RAQ3 will be around 8-10 times slower than 1Ghz AMD system with DDR memory.

This is a misleading statement.

For static HTML comment, low - to - moderate traffic, he'd never notice a difference.

You can only serve static HTML so fast.

A 1 Ghz AMD may beat a 300 Mhz AMD by a factor of 8-10 on some CPU benchmark somewhere, but it certainly won't server pages 8-10 times faster as you imply.

Nizam,
For basic static sites, even a couple with MySQL hooks, a RaQ3 or 4 will do a great job.

Brandon

If you're hosting MySQL databases on the RAQ as well as a few busy sites, you'll need to watch out for RAM more than CPU power.

Those little RAQ4i's can take a beating though -- and they're good to get your business started with.

We have since, however, moved the majority of our sites to Dual PIII-1.0ghz, 2GB RAM FreeBSD boxes (w/ Plesk).

There's no going back now. ;)

Originally posted by dektong
Well, which one do you think is better?

300Mhz older generation processor or 1000Mhz newer generation processor?

cheers,
:beer:

Can any of you explain then, why the Rackshack offers for a 450 MHz/128MB RaQ4 and the 1GHz AMD/512MB are priced the same (99 USD)?

Because Raq's tend to be more expensive than / or a similar price to normal 1u servers.

Can any of you explain then, why the Rackshack offers for a 450 MHz/128MB RaQ4 and the 1GHz AMD/512MB are priced the same (99 USD)?

RaQs are more expensive for them to buy. The 1Ghz boxes from both RackShack and DV2 are 'white boxes' - they actually are built in normal desktop or tower cases to even save the cost of a 1U case.

RaQ's are meant to be very easy to deploy (just plug it in) and to compete with typical 1U server prices. They haven't changed very much in a year or more from what I can tell. The 'white boxes' are an innovative approach to reducing costs by cutting out the frills and just delivering a fast CPU, IDE hard drive(s), and what you need for a very low price (since computer hardware is pretty inexpensive now for the hp compared to a year or two ago... the case alone saves $100-$200 over a good 1u case). The advantage of the RaQ is that if you know one you know another - the hardware and config is all identical. The advantage of the Whilebox is that it is much faster, you pay just for hardware rather than a case or a brand, and that you can do with it what you like software-wise and are not stuck with a cobalt-modified OS if you don't want to be.

I can't believe it...
Especially for someone hosting lots of boxes, like Rackshack does, I would have expected the number of boxes that fit into a rack to be a cost factor as well.

Now, a rack has 46U, right?, so you put, maybe, 42 1U servers in it, aproximatively.

But with mini tower cases, I guess it's only half of that, so it's a waste of space and should be more costy....

Well, they're selling what they have to sell. Space is one of these things... Their new data center is huge. They wouldn't be able to offer servers at such price if they were using expensive 1U or 2U rack chassis...

Ales