I have been using a reseller account at My A.S.P. Hosting for over a year now and everything has been great.

But, I am getting to a point that I want to start doing a small amount of the hosting I provide to my clients internally.

I am looking at getting my own DS-3 & T1 line into the office and hosting a few of the slower traffic web sites internally. Basically, slowly starting to build my own datacenter.

I know there is a lot more to it and this is going to be a slow process, but with the funding I have behind me, I think I can be up and running within 3 to 5 months.

So, now I have to look at what type of server hardware I want to run. I have been looking very closely at the Sun Cobalt servers and really like the services available to me and the seemingly popularity of the servers.

Am I correct? Is a Sun Cobalt RaQ 4r a good purchase decision for someone that is going to be hosting multiple shared hosting type accounts? If someone came to me needing something more mission critical and dedicated, I would continue to use My A.S.P. Hosting, but the smaller sites and lower priced accounts I offer could be hosted internally.

Any thoughts? If you wouldn't recommend using a Sun Cobalt RaQ 4r, what would you recommend? I would like to purchase two, fully functional servers, for around $6500 USD. Is that too much?? Too little??

Thanks!

I doubt you're going to have enough revenue from a "few of the slower sites" to come anywhere close to covering your costs. While you'd only really need a single T1 if you only had a server or two, you've also got to think about all the other infrastructure involved.

I'd HIGHLY recommend you purchase, or lease, or rent-to-own a RaQ and colocate it in a facility near you, so you can build you client base steadily while avoiding all of the unnecessary capital investments required to start even the smallest in-house hosting operation.

Drop me a PM if you need some detailed advice.

Brandon

Of course, I can't and shouldn't get into the details of my financial backing. But, I can say that it won't be a concern.

I currently have over 5000 shared hosting customers and after having setting up our small center and "testing the waters", we would be setting up a much larger operation and moving all of our shared hosting customers onto our internal datacenter.

We have done the financials and starting up our own datacenter, although costly in the beginning, will be more cost-effective in the long run and provide both a larger profit for us within 2 years and then we can also provide cheaper package rates to our existing and new clients.

So, with that said, I would like opinions on what type of server hardware people think we should purchase. I am not interested in the "why we shouldn't do it" comments. No offence intended, but I hope you see my point.

So, should I go with Cobalt's, or something else??

Absolutely no offense taken :)

Besides, most folks on here who ask that question don't have 5000 sites as a reseller. And they certainly don't characterize 5000 sites as a few. :eek:

If you're looking for relatively low maintenance servers to host around 100-200 low-resource sites, the RaQ's can't be beat. Will your customers need the control panel access? RaQ's are an especially good option if you don't have the in-house technical resources to build and manage your own white boxes day one.

I don't know that I'd go for the more expensive 4r..... money might not be an problem, but it would make more sense to me to buy a RaQ4 or 4i and just run a script each night to backup the sites to a file server.

Brandon

I am glad no offence was taken.

In my first post, the reason I said a few clients, was simply because I don't want to transfer a ton of my customers over to a network center that is brand new and still hasn't been fully tested and everything like that.

Plus, it will take a couple of months just for the construction of the added office space, installation of a diesel generator, etc.

So, that's why, the first 3 to 5 months will simply be hosting a couple hundred of my shared hosting accounts as testers. The clients would of course be notified and offered free hosting for those months while we test everything.

So, cbtrussell, your point about the RaQ4 or 4i is very valid and I like it.

I would require a client control panel, so that's is why I am looking at the Cobalt's. I would like the control panel to offer me and my staff complete access and control to everything (of course), my clients access to their specific information and allow changes, as well as a panel that the specific users of my resellers could utilize. That is one thing I like about My A.S.P. Hosting, they allow their resellers to resell their space to other resellers. No limits on that. I would like to continue to provide the same level of service that I am providing now, and having a control panel built right into the server OS I think is the best...less chance of incompatibilities......or am I mistaken?

A question though, can the RaQ4 or 4i support two hard drives in the future, or will those machines simply have to stay as a single hard drive machine?

I have a Raq 4i. I really like it. But I have heard that it will handle about 80 accounts effectively.

So if you have the financial backing, I would look at just getting regular servers. If you are into the 1u racks, then you could just buy 1u racks. Doesn't have to be a Raq.

________________
Keith

Originally posted by kmurrey
...but I have heard that it will handle about 80 accounts effectively....
________________
Keith

Only 80 accounts? I have heard that it can effectively handle around 150 low traffic accounts and around 75 accounts that are mid-level traffic.

Are you talking about mid-level traffic accounts when you say 80 accounts?

I do like the scalability of the Cobalts and that is why I would like to go with them. But, if in the long run, something else will work better for us, I am trying to find that out now.

We don't have the largest and best technical team internally, which is another reason I like the Cobalts. It's not that we can't go and build a big "white box" server to do everything we want, but that takes time and resources.....and much more space once we grow larger.

Is there any more comments, or links to some statistics, that can show me a realistic number of accounts that the RaQ4's can support without slowing down significiantly?

You can talk to sun - they'll say 200. But there are guys on this site that say 80 - and they are running Raqs.

For the same money as a Raq - you can get a server that will host a few hundred sites easily....

______________________
Keith

Are you experienced with Linux/ Unix?

If not, I'd suggest getting a Windows box... I learned some Unix at school, and it definitely hasn't been sufficient to effectively utilize my RaQ4r...

I have been trying to get MySQL/ ASP/ ColdFusion setup for over a month now, and I'm still running into problems...

If you have any clients who need these features, definitely consider this...

While Windows machines are more expensive to license and stuff, the quality of software is much, much better... None of this PHPMyAdmin crap to admin your databases...

Especially if you're thinking about setting up a network and doing everything in-house... The compatibility/ tech support if you need it is much better with windows... You'll be able to run multiple servers to handle your different tasks (ie. an exchange server to handle your email, an ISA server for your security, etc.)...

Now maybe this isn't an issue, if you're some kind of Unix guru, but my guess, is that you aren't....

Personally, I wish I'd never purchased my Cobalt... I have had too many problems setting stuff up that I know I could do on a Windows machine...

They say that you don't need any Unix knowledge to admin a Cobalt, but that is only if you want to add sites/ users... If you run into a problem, you're up **** creek without a paddle...

Take care and good luck,

Colin

:cool:

Depending on the traffic of the sites, you can host up to 200 sites on a raq, one of mine currently has 183. Granted - these are very small - electronic business card sites that dont get much traffic - but they work!!!

I would seriously reconsider brining your machines in house. I cant tell you how nice it is not to have to worry about the pipes coming into your network. - This is a full time job and you can easily get burned!!!

I like to focus more on the customer - leaving the pipes to someone else really helps out here.

Yet - there is always some romance in building it/owning it - its a tough decision.

Also - remember - you can always turn a raq3i into a 4r-150mhz! That is what I have running on the 183 site server. That should keep your costs down bigtime! You should be able to get 2 for less than $1500 total! (plus some legwork)

Good Luck -

- Surf!

Also - remember - you can always turn a raq3i into a 4r-150mhz! That is what I have running on the 183 site server. That should keep your costs down bigtime! You should be able to get 2 for less than $1500 total! (plus some legwork)

I would have to agree with that!!! I walked into a raq3i for $450 and that is what got me up and going, Just droped a K2/500 into, cost me like $40 usd off of price watch :) Upgraded the OS. Now I am not doing nearly as volume as 5000 sites but going with hopped up raq3i's are great tho build low maintenance/low traffic servers with out spending a bundle. Now if you need something bigger than what a Raq can offer I suggest that you start learning RedHat. I just put together my first server to handel what the Raq cant, Dual P3 800, 1 gig ram, 2 80 gig Seagates, all brand new for less than $1000. And yes this is all in house. But thats only because the T1 was already there and 5 static ip's to boot :) :) :) So I am just building as I need to.

Also - remember - you can always turn a raq3i into a 4r-150mhz! That is what I have running on the 183 site server. That should keep your costs down bigtime! You should be able to get 2 for less than $1500 total! (plus some legwork)

As the previous poster said, it gets even better.... we routinely buy RaQ3's, upgrade them to 500Mhz (underclocked 550Mhz cpu's), 512MB RAM, 20/30GB HD's, and the RaQ4 OS. We even include new fans. We warranty every unit we ship..and have yet to see one come back.

(Be careful though, you must ALWAYS refer to the unit as RaQ3 or Sun will come down on you!)

Thinker, if you start with a RaQ3i, you can upgrade to a second HD at any time. You can even install the RaQ4r OS! If you start with a 4i, it's possible to install twin 80GB drives in a RAID1 configuration. Generally you can only install 30GB drives in RaQ3's.

If you need some details, or if you don't want to do it yourself and are interested in some of the units we have in stock, drop me a PM.

Finally, as far as load. Sure you can buy a 1.5Ghz+ unit that will serve up sites like crazy. But folks, come on. We've got a 66Mhz Pentium (I) running in our data center with 500 sites on it. It works great. I know someone with a modified RaQ3 with 8000 business card sites on it. For your average every day mom and pop brochureware sites, a RaQ3 or RaQ4 will serve 200 without breaking a sweat. Now if you're in the habit of doing business with children who are constantly in there running scripts and PHP/MySQL etc, sure you're gonna have problems, and you won't be able to host as many sites. I frequently find myself in amazement at the folks who constantly slam these things about how underpowered they are, but the fact is they do a GREAT job at a GREAT price.

That's my $0.02,

Brandon

That is some great information so far everyone! I really appreciate the help!

Brandon...you have mail...

Finally, as far as load. Sure you can buy a 1.5Ghz+ unit that will serve up sites like crazy. But folks, come on. We've got a 66Mhz Pentium (I) running in our data center with 500 sites on it.
The only reason I mentioned about runnig something bigger tha a raq sever for example; the site that is going on the mentioned server that I built is going to be mainly hosting a online music store, that is already up and doing very well. Very big php data base to run all the e-comm. , and a lot of sound files to be streamed. The Raq is incapable to even host such a complex site. So once the site is migrated to the server Month #1 server pay for it self, Month #2 Sever pays for present T1 and a nice sum of profit.
Food for thought: Any service that you can provide at a corparate or commercial level is more profitable for your time than dealing with the general public.
Just my 2 1/2 worth :)

I see your points about using a larger system to host more commercial sites.

We would continue to use the My A.S.P. Hosting servers when we secured those types of clients.

Currently, the majority (~80%) of our shared hosting customers are small business sites with anywhere between 1 and 10 pages of static content.

We are partnered with a web design company that targets the small towns and cities in Canada. Therefore, we host a TON of sites that are just quick, small sites that get very little traffic.

The small sites keep the lights on and the big sites buy me new cars! LOL!! ;)

One more opinion here :)

I would stay away from Cobalt RaQs. They are great hosting servers (don't get me wrong), but if you are going to invest in a data center and are willing to spend thousands (may hundreds of thousands) of dollars in Cisco Routers, Switches, Generator, etc, etc... I would seriously consider higher end servers, such as for example a Dell PowerEdge 8450 with dual Xeon Processors, 2 megs of cache and 4 Gigs of RAM.

I do use Cobalt RaQs and I have to disagree with some posters. We have a few RaQs with close to 200 sites, they are all static sites, but still the RaQs will perform quite well, however I just don't think they are the best platform to use if you are serious about investing, especially if you are building your own data center. I think you have to concentrate on offering very high-end hosting plans to start bringing the necessary revenue to justify your investment. Just because you are financially capable of building a data center does not mean that you should throw the money away and not care about the actual return on the investment.

Just my $0.02 :)

Just because you are financially capable of building a data center does not mean that you should throw the money away and not care about the actual return on the investment.

You seem to contradict yourself here. Perhaps you didn't catch the application he plans to use the RaQ's for.... he's got a bunch of static, low traffic sites. Existing customers, fixed revenue. While I agree with your statement above completely, you are encouraging to go out and buy a Ferrari when an Accord will do quite nicely. Why invest significantly more money in high end Dell servers when a RaQ will do the job perfectly?

For *new* accounts, where he's seeking new business that generates higher revenues, a high end platform may help him pull in that business, no doubt. But for the task at hand, I don't think the extra expenditure makes much sense.

Good thoughts all,

Brandon

Originally posted by cbtrussell
For *new* accounts, where he's seeking new business that generates higher revenues, a high end platform may help him pull in that business, no doubt. But for the task at hand, I don't think the extra expenditure makes much sense.

Good point. I should have mentioned that. Yes, indeed, I agree. I was thinking about new signups, not about existing low-end sites. :)

I would like to say some about running windows type boxes, I don't recomend it. Any of the web windows boxes will take a large amount of admin time to keep them up and running.
And to keep from getting hacked weekly patches and updates.

I have work in this area for some time and any non windows box will be a better choice. Also the person that came up with a graphics enterface for a server should have their head checked out because they were somewhere in space when they came up with that idea. If you use a graphic enterface and can unload after is uses that would be ok. Most things can be done from the command prompt and save a large amount of ram let alone disk space. This is one of the reasions why I bought a two raq4 and am working on a project to move an application off of a windows box. There are several model of the cobalt and you should check them out. Also call sun and talk to their pre-sells team they can fill you in on their current plans.

A few comments:

I have several RaQ 4rs, several dual-processor Dell PowerEdge servers running Linux/Plesk, and several PIII ~800-1000 MHz running Linux and either Plesk or Webmin.

First, RaQ 4rs don't cost that much more to purchase than RaQ 4is, and the Raid 1 has saved my butt a couple of times over the couple of years that I've had them when a drive has failed. I personally would never use a non-Raid server for Web hosting (although I do use a non-Raid server for personal sites).

The problems I have with RaQ 4s is that they cannot handle load. Non-CGI/MySQL/PHP sites are fine. One heavy traffic site running a forum or similar script--even one using efficient PHP/MySQL programming--will monopolize the server's resources.

Plesk is a *great* control panel, and I'm in the process of switching from RaQs to high-powered hardware running Plesk. If I was starting from scratch today knowning what I know now, I would go with high-powered hardware and Plesk all the way and not even mess with RaQs.

There is one big advantage that the RaQ has that I miss with Plesk--the RaQ "community" is huge. The RaQ mailling list is an incredible knowledge base--just about any problem you will run in to someone has also encountered and someone else has solved. This makes the RaQ a great "first" server, because it's relatively easy to learn and maintain.

Someone said use Windows because it was easier than Linux. False. Easier on your desk top, but not easier to administrate Internet services, and a hell of a lot more expensive.

Hey Chris,

I was the one who said I'd rather use Windows than Linux... Personally, I find that Windows is easier to administer...

I have no problem setting up SQL/ ColdFusion stuff on a Windows box, but I/m having huge problems with my RaQ...

It is more expensive, but to me, is definitely worth the extra dollars...

If you're just hosting static site, for sure, a RaQ is great, but it has been my experience that adding new features and configuring stuff is a lot harder on a RaQ...

Colin

Wow! I lot of great information was deposited here over the weekend!

Thank you all for the help and information. I will take everyone's comments into account...