Hi,

On my search of a good dedicated server, I asked the opinion of my current host about a cobalt server.
He said to me that the cobalt servers are 'trash' and the most hosters want to sell them for the moment, then I asked why they are 'trash' and he told me that the hardware of a cobalt server is really bad.

So now I wonna know, is it true that cobalt servers are not good or should I not believe him and just buy one?


Thx in advance,
niles!

Now that's f*cking sellers-talk....
I guess he doesn't sell Cobalt and wants to sell his other servers?

Cobalt has made a few mistakes, like the release of the first RaQ XTR,...

But overall they are one of the most stable and qualityful servers I've ever seen.

A disadvantage is that cobalt uses its own hardware.
It doens't have a graphics card, or a normal motherboard so you can't install Linux or an other OS over it. The good thing is that you can upgrade your server with NORMAL pc parts (memory, HD,...)

Why is cobalt that good?

- They made a server having an IDIOT PROOF control panel.
- Setup time is about 10min
- Ideal machine for newbies
- Admin time is really low
- Complete easy to install packages are available
- great support (not FROM cobalt fut from fora)
- ...

There is nothing wrong with a RaQ (4) if you use it for the right purpose. The only issue with them is that they have a slower/older processor (400 mhz. if I remember correctly) and they don't hold a lot of memory.

If you have lower traffic/static sites they work great.

You can also find them for a bargan.

Frank

RaQ4 is 450Mhz (up to 512MB RAM)

RaQ XTR is 850MHz (the wrong ones were 733MHz)

RaQ 550 is 1Ghz - 1.26GHz (up to 1GB RAM)

Originally posted by FiberOptic
Now that's f*cking sellers-talk....
I guess he doesn't sell Cobalt and wants to sell his other servers?

Your right when you say he don't sell cobalt servers, but he only sells virtual hosting so he has no advantage for saying that...

But thx for the comments ;)

Some people have this 'thing' about RaQs.

:mad:

The Raq is a pretty neat piece of machine. About 2 years ago, I decided to move on to dedicated hosting but was afraid of the plunge into the unmanaged solution. At that time, my linux experience was close to zero and much less trying to manage my own server.

The Raq 3i control panel was not the prettiest or the most comprehensive one available but it sure is simple to use. It took me under a week to get everything going. And it sure was fun.

The Raq is built around the PC architecture but stripped down and optimized for web hosting.

Having the same interface and components actually made troubleshooting pretty simple. Since anyone using a Raq would have the same hardware and software. Patches were simple to install too. In fact, I spend my time at the control panel without having to telnet into the system for anything.

It is great for beginners. Although compared to the hardware configuration available today, the Raq may pale in comparison but nevertheless still a nice machine.

It isn't all that slow if you do not require a lot of server processing through SSI or CGIs.


Edwin

the raq's are definitly good for newbies, but once you 'graduate,' onto Red Hat, THEN you can really do some stuff

There are good and bad sides to everything. So I would think it would be nice to post both.

Good
-Very good for small and static sites. You can host tons of them and make your profit back fast and easy.
-the GUI is user friendly compared to other GUIs offered by other companies. Simple, easy, and easily understandable.
-More forums to get for troubleshooting since everyone has the same systems. And definately brought us all here to chat about our raq problems and have everyone help out.
-nice and small little rack and doesnt weigh a ton compared to other 1u servers. I sure have a better time removing one of those from the rack mounts compared to the big dell poweredge &#@#* rack mount servers.
Newbies going into the dedicated arena gives us less headaches when they choose a RAQ compared to a Redhat 7.2 box.


Bad Things
I never did like the IDE drives inside of them. Sometimes I feel sorry for them since they have to work so hard. (yes im emotionally attached to all the servers I work with and I give them names too, once in a while I would give the raqs a hug so they will continue to give me less trouble)

Their little fans do not have exceptionally long life spans.

They are relatively easy to hack into. That is unless you decide to harden the security. Put in ipchains and put in portsentry.
That is same for everthing, if many people use it, many people will try to exploit it.

They cannot host massive sites with tons of traffic. Wish the raq4s had more ram expansion slots and a place for a dual CPU. But then again I anticipate the raq550 to be goodies, other than the fact they are still single processors with IDE drives.

I'm considering purchasing a dedicated... but Cephren used the word 'static' which urked me...

Can you host dynamic content (php/mysql)??

His post gave this image of simple a fileserver with http protocals?... How much can you do with them?...

What is the limit of what tpye of content you can provide on it?

Yes it can do dynamic.
But dont expect it to be a super duper dynamic server serving millions and millions of web surfers.

It kinda slows down if you have lots of visitors concurrently grabbing stuff from a mysql database.

For the same price, if youre mainly going to use it for php and mysql why not get a dualie box?

how many sites max could a RaQ host? which would be more powerful/stable, linux or RaQ?

1) Amount of sites depends on WHAT sites, visitors, ....
2) RaQ = Linux RedHat 6.2 + idiot-proof control panel

FiberOptic: Its actualy Red Hat 6.0

Fiber is correct, intel based RaQ's use 6.2 (MIPS based use 5.2)

Brandon