On average, how many sites do you host with your raq?
What monthly bandwidth do you pump with each raq?

On average. 95-120
But depends on the sites really.
If it were all static sites then again around 150-180

Around 35-60 GB per server per month, but then again depends.

Thanks for the help.

Anyway, with the kind of numbers you provide, could you also provide email server in the raq at around 3 mailboxes per domain?

Would a faster processor/more memory/bigger HD allow for more sites? or is the this number the maximum risk you are willing to take?

I wouldn't go above 100...
(depends on WHAT sites)

But I know someone who is running 250 sites (all static HTML) on a RaQ3 and he didn't have any problems yet..

Well, most importanty watch the CPU and RAM usage as you add the virtual sites.
I have 223 virtual sites running, RAM is just about on the edge,
nearly %80 and the CPU should not get higher than %70's as mine lies around %40's..
And the average bandwith is around 110 Gig per month, but it also depends what connection you're under.
Our Internal Network is connected via multiple redundant DS3 and OC3 backbone connections through MCI, Sprint and UUNET.
-This Cobalt RAQ 4 only serves, web serving and FTP, nothing else, no DNS, no email (formmail.pl uses email service however).
Hope this helps,
Matt,

I installed mod_gzip to reduce bandwidth, though most of the sites currently hosted are fairly small anyway.

So given today's limits of tech, a web server with mostly static sites would run out of memory faster than out of processor?

Dynamic sites put more load on processor?ram? or both?

Basicly, as long as you add vitual sites, your RAM usage will increase no matter what you do. However CPU usage works kind of different than the RAM usage does. The more dynamic sites, the more hits you get, the more FTP resources used, your CPU must response these queries while RAM usage stays the same.
I differentiate those sites from the web , bandwith and hit usage, then set them to proper web servers.
Our RAQ 4's basicly host "static web sites". That's how we maintain the CPU usage under %40 .
To your question,
Dynamic sites will NOT put more load on ram usage but CPU.

Because, RAM is the place where programs are ran. There is only 1 factor that affects RAM usage dramaticly which is the Email Server. That's why we won't run emails on the web dedicated Cobalt's. Simply RAM is not enough for Cobalt to handle.
If you're planning to run over 200 virtual web sites, I'd recommend you to plan very carefully.
If you have any further questions
reach me from
perltech@mynet.com

I have a raq4 running with about 280 small sites, so basically it just depends on what kind of sites you want to put on it imho

But I thought there was a hard limit of 250 sites max on a RAQ? Isn't that true anymore?

Nope, it's not true.
250 is there to give possible RAQ buyers a clean view of how much it can handle.
It's just an average assumption.

Originally posted by Stingreen
Nope, it's not true.
250 is there to give possible RAQ buyers a clean view of how much it can handle.
It's just an average assumption.
As far as I can remember if you want to add more than 250 sites you have to make some changes to one of the Cobalt scripts

8:01pm up 6:26, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.26, 0.10
95 processes: 90 sleeping, 5 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 38.2% user, 10.9% system, 0.0% nice, 50.7% idle
Mem: 127784K av, 125372K used, 2412K free, 414256K shrd, 8872K buff
Swap: 131532K av, 576K used, 130956K free 33036K cached

PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
23784 dennis 14 0 3276 3276 1076 R 0 8.8 2.5 0:00 fileman.pl
23782 dennis 10 0 2912 2912 1048 R 0 7.0 2.2 0:00 fileman.pl
23785 dennis 10 0 1804 1804 964 R 0 3.5 1.4 0:00 fileman.pl
23639 admin 5 0 900 900 676 R 0 1.7 0.7 0:01 top
10771 httpd 0 0 11384 11M 9220 S 0 0.7 8.9 0:05 httpd
10740 httpd 3 0 10944 10M 9132 S 0 0.3 8.5 0:05 httpd
10745 httpd 3 0 10788 10M 9224 S 0 0.3 8.4 0:04 httpd
23788 root 9 0 800 800 632 S 0 0.3 0.6 0:00 lcd-showip
23793 root 11 0 412 412 348 R 0 0.3 0.3 0:00 pidof
10741 httpd 0 0 10624 10M 9636 S 0 0.1 8.3 0:05 httpd
10800 httpd 0 0 10648 10M 9636 S 0 0.1 8.3 0:03 httpd
10857 httpd 6 0 10832 10M 9636 S 0 0.1 8.4 0:05 httpd
10926 httpd 0 0 11168 10M 9184 S 0 0.1 8.7 0:05 httpd
10934 httpd 0 0 10608 10M 9644 S 0 0.1 8.3 0:04 httpd
11029 httpd 0 0 10456 10M 9604 S 0 0.1 8.1 0:05 httpd
13972 httpd 0 0 10576 10M 9644 S 0 0.1 8.2 0:03 httpd
15015 httpd 0 0 10320 9876 9200 S 0 0.1 7.7 0:02 httpd
22540 httpd 0 0 10040 9596 9176 S 0 0.1 7.5 0:00 httpd
23610 root 0 0 1632 1632 1320 S 0 0.1 1.2 0:00 sshd
23791 root 10 0 796 796 724 S 0 0.1 0.6 0:00 lcdstop
1 root 0 0 472 472 400 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:03 init
2 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 kflushd
3 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 kupdate
4 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 kpiod
5 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 kswapd
6 root -20 -20 0 0 0 SW< 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 mdrecoveryd
121 root 0 0 524 524 424 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:06 syslogd
130 root 0 0 784 784 384 S 0 0.0 0.6 0:00 klogd
515 root 0 0 616 616 508 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:00 crond
527 root 0 0 484 484 412 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:01 inetd
556 named 0 0 1892 1892 1064 S 0 0.0 1.4 0:02 named
561 root 0 0 964 964 840 S 0 0.0 0.7 0:01 sshd
575 root 0 0 5992 5992 4868 S 0 0.0 4.6 0:01 httpd.admsrv
600 root 0 0 6732 6732 5160 S 0 0.0 5.2 0:02 httpd.admsrv
612 root 0 0 9612 9168 8952 S 0 0.0 7.1 0:03 httpd
684 postgres 5 5 1344 1344 948 S N 0 0.0 1.0 0:00 postmaster
755 root 0 0 816 816 596 S 0 0.0 0.6 0:00 caspd
756 root 0 0 816 816 596 S 0 0.0 0.6 0:00 caspd
757 root 0 0 816 816 596 S 0 0.0 0.6 0:00 caspd
764 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
809 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
811 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
812 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
813 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
814 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
815 root 0 0 5400 5400 2952 S 0 0.0 4.2 0:00 caspeng
816 root 0 0 1488 1488 1392 S 0 0.0 1.1 0:00 admd
818 nobody 0 0 1480 1480 1384 S 0 0.0 1.1 0:00 admd

Babak,
You're nearly on your limit as of adding any other virtual sites. I don't know how your CPU usage travels on a 100 percent scale.
But I'd not recommend adding more sites. Or you're going to burst up your CPU since RAM usage is almost at it's max.

but this is what I get in GUI.


CPU:
15 minute CPU load average is 0.11
The processor is currently 34 degrees Celsius.

MEM:
The memory is being lightly used.

Total memory on the system is 259316 KB
Free available memory is 144132 KB
Used memory is 115184 KB which is 44 percent of the total memory .


regards,
babak

Yeah I wouldn't add anymore sites. Your raq will only start to crash and hang. Then you'll get customers complaining. If you are webhosting with Mysql PHP CGI boards, and heavy traffic on sites, you're raq, even with 512 meg ram will only handle a few of these sites, about 10 max. If you just offer basic static HTML you could host quite a few, but I don't know many people these days that want just static html on their domains.

I would think about getting a second raq, or moving onto a server with better CPU, RAM and CACHE

Hi I'm new to RaQ/stats but would you tell me from which informatin I can read that I should not add any more sites???

Well, man I didn't say for you to not add anymore sites. And you'll know when not too when your Raq starts using up all the RAM and CPU. If it starts crashing more and more, then obviously it's a good idea to not add anymore sites, and perhaps upgrade. The Raq's are pretty crap in my opinon for serious web hosting. I prefer to use them for dedicated sites per raq. Utilizing all features of the raq for that site and raq only.

Hi

I just have posted 2massege's here one is the loads of my rag4 trouw command "TOP" and the other is thre loads displayed in my GUI, in "TOP"it's say that there is only 10mb free of 128mb, but in GUI it say mammory is light loaded!!!???? which one should I blieve :)

Regards,
babak

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gridlokd Well, man I didn't say for you to not add anymore sites. And you'll know when not too when your Raq starts using up all the RAM and CPU. If it starts crashing more and more, then obviously it's a good idea to not add anymore sites, and perhaps upgrade. The Raq's are pretty crap in my opinon for serious web hosting. I prefer to use them for dedicated sites per raq. Utilizing all features of the raq for that site and raq only. [/QUOTE

How could one day having 2000 mostly static sites cause a problem if there is no hard-coded limit on the numbers and if 285 sites only use 10% of its capacity?

Also, you mention it will crash more as I go beyind 285 sites. That is odd as in 2 plus yrs of having the colocated dedicated server running it has NEVER crashed even once, with zero downtime!

I think most of you guys are way exaggerating the potential problems and underestimating the RaQ3 capacity.