After seeing a similar thread I though I'D better ask. Here's what I estimate will be on my server:

- 50 sites at 100MB each
- 20 running a CGI based forum that aren't half as busy as this one.
- 15 rUnning a PHP/MySQL forum, again not the busiest.
- 40 running some sort of small CGI script like a poll or guest book
- 15 serving small under 5MB downloads

Will 50 sites suffer speed decreases on a RaQ3 with 256MB RAM. Will it be nessacary to upgrade to 512MB? Or is this configuration fine?

[Edited by syanet on 01-05-2001 at 11:51 PM]

Forgot we had a RAQ forum now :).

Anyone know?

I can move this to the RaQ forum if you'd like but I think the problem is that there are no absolutes in your post, thus no absolute answers.

If it slows down, you'll either have to move the busier site(s) off the server to another one, or increase the RAM to the maximum the server can take.

Really not much else can be said.

Sure, move it over. Just wondering if any RaQ experts can take an educated guess. Since I'm only using hald the hard drive, I don't think I'd have to go with alot of RAM. I was thinking of starting at 128MB, rather than 256MB after thinking about it some more.

On our server we have a few busy websites. Ones about a boy band and they are just massive right now. One is a chatsite and one is a religous site. The server only has 128mb ram and performs really well. I check the server load and memory use a lot during busy periods and we never move off " being lightly used ". Thats only a few sites but they are very busy and use a lot of cgi.

Okay, I think I'll go with 128MB RAM to start with. I doubt a thrid of those 50 sites actually use more the 25MB space anyway.

Syanet were you able to run all the sites you mentioned on a raq3 with success including the CGI forum ones?
If so give us some more details.

Use "top" in your telnet and see if your raq is running out of memory. And try pinging it and see if the responses are slow.

Personally, I do think that 256 is VERY enough for these sites.