Hi There,

I've had overall good experiences with the RaQ line, but given that Cobalt isn't around anymore and my server is getting to be a little bit slow, I'm wondering what my options are. I can certainly get a faster machine from Dell or any PC vendor pretty much, but it won't come with the software I really want, which is the RaQ interface.

That leads me to my question: I've seen RaQ 550 or XTR system CDs on eBay for cheap. Is the idea to install these on a mainstream blade system? Does it actually work? What about the LCD update processes--I can't imagine it's a perfect transition.

Aside from RaQs, are there any modern, comparable machines out there? I don't really like cPanel very much.

Thanks!

Aaron

First I would say you don't really need to do anything more then just the updates.... I expect to run the boxes for a long time still...

That leads me to my question: I've seen RaQ 550 or XTR system CDs on eBay for cheap. Is the idea to install these on a mainstream blade system?

I don't reccomend it for business use, but if you can do the install from a cd you should be good to go... it's a free download btw...

Does it actually work?

Yes! it has some issues but it does work.

What about the LCD update processes--I can't imagine it's a perfect transition.

Well if the Blades have a Cobalt LCD system I would be worried.. but no.. this os does not install on the hardware you have now... it's for a fresh pc and no LCD is expected.

Aside from RaQs, are there any modern, comparable machines out there?

I have never seen a gui system be as stable as the RaQ4 gui... in my opinion all the 550 gui versions are a little unstable and just bad for bussiness. So I'm just doing updates until something better comes along. I suggest the same...

That leads me to my question: I've seen RaQ 550 or XTR system CDs on eBay for cheap. Is the idea to install these on a mainstream blade system? Does it actually work?
First, as the previous poster points out, the CDs on eBay are a bit of a rip-off: you can download the ISO, burn it, and have the same thing. Generally the idea is that people run them on various white-box PC systems. There is someone who has posted on another board (probably StrongBolt) about loading up a set of blades. If the LCD isn't present, it is just ignored. Other than that the RaQ is a reasonably typical system -- not standard PC config, but pretty simple.

I can't imagine it's a perfect transition.
The CentOS+BlueQuartz stuff installs pretty easily on any standard PC, and seems to just work. It has all the benefits and drawbacks of a reasonably modern RedHat Enterprise Linux, which it is based on, plus the 550 interface.

Aside from RaQs, are there any modern, comparable machines out there? I don't really like cPanel very much.
Regrettably, the "appliance" market really didn't develop: the economies of scale of the PC biz basically nuked its business model: that an appliance would be cheaper than a full-fledged "PC". So insofar as it continues to exist, the appliance market mostly consists of software solutions on stock PC HW designs.

Regarding software solutions, it really is a matter of taste and what you're going to use it for. The RaQ system was a good semi-automated system for serving up lots of low- to medium-volume websites, as you would at a typical end-user ISP. Since it didn't do clustering or any other complex load-balancing, you would never use it for something truly high-volume or something that needed a lot of customization. So the answer really depends on what you want to use it for.

I serve a lot of low-volume websites for non-profits and find that the RaQ is a good trade-off for me regarding low admin time and general reliability. I have now shifted to the CentOS+BlueQuartz base away from the Raq4/Raq550 OSs, but some here will disagree with that. I have found I needed up-to-date software (e.g. MediaWiki requires PHP5) and it is easier to compile and install on a system closer to regular RedHat, which CentOS is.


I have never seen a gui system be as stable as the RaQ4 gui... in my opinion all the 550 gui versions are a little unstable and just bad for bussiness. So I'm just doing updates until something better comes along. I suggest the same...

I think that there are many who would disagree with this, but of course everyone should go for what they know. There really isn't any evidence that the 550 GUI is or ever was "unstable". The original 550 OS was based on a version on Linux that had some trouble under high web load, but the BlueQuartz version on top of RHEL seems rock-solid to me. Besides, the GUI is just that -- it doesn't really get in the way of the normal operation of the machine, its just the config mechanism, so it doesn't contribute much one way or the other to "stability".

The Raq550 (and Qube3) use the "Sausalito" GUI interface, a rather ambitious client-server concept that never really reached full fruition in the Raq line. The previous Raq systems (including the Raq4) had a more hand-hewn Perl-based GUI. A loosely-knit group called bluequartz.org picked it up when Sun open-sourced the Raq software. Hence CentOS+BlueQuartz.

The issue, for me, with the Raq4 OS is that it is based on a now-ancient version of Linux, and all the surrounding programs (PHP, Perl, MySql, sendmail, bind, ...) are also ancient, at least in the basic release. It needs patch upon patch upon patch to be made reliable and secure. There are those who have done this work, but my preference is for a newer, cleaner system running up-to-date software. Your mileage may vary.

We have been also discussing this in another thread on this board: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=556418

Good luck!

A loosely-knit group called bluequartz.org picked it up when Sun open-sourced the Raq software. Hence CentOS+BlueQuartz.

I just read this and it was unclear. To be clear: Bluequartz.org picked up the 550 Sausalito interface and are developing it. There is also a less-active group called raqDevil.

I think that there are many who would disagree with this, but of course everyone should go for what they know.

I have gotten to know the entire line all to well over the years and the 550 errors and recovery options are the worst on the 550 like systems. In my opinion Ensim is always changing and cpanel is a work in motion! I Like Both! The BlueQuartz group is constantly changing things all the time.
The RaQ4 gui has not needed a change in over 4 years. I call that stable.

There really isn't any evidence that the 550 GUI is or ever was "unstable".

You wanted to know why I censored some things? This is one of the top reasons.

You can take my word for it or you can search the bluequarzt list and maybe more places for reports of config files like the proftpd.conf, virtusertable, bind files,and I'm sure I'm missing something... what happens it seems, is that the gui doesn't write out the files correctly (or it may be random too) and instead fills them with the "@" sign. One Big Long Line of em... and then you need to rebuild the files by hand. or restore a new server and restore a backup. This happens on the orig 550 and bluequartz.

The original 550 OS was based on a version on Linux that had some trouble under high web load, but the BlueQuartz version on top of RHEL seems rock-solid to me.

I have never seen a "high web load" problem with the 550's . However one should keep in mind it's only a 800 or 1ghz proc... it's only going to do so much.

Besides, the GUI is just that -- it doesn't really get in the way of the normal operation of the machine, its just the config mechanism, so it doesn't contribute much one way or the other to "stability".

No. The GUI has always been the probem and for that very reason! It gets in the way of the normal operation! Your about to find out about this since you want to build php5. The gui is built on php4 and you have to maintain that and it's normal install directories and then install a second useally less "well built" (Lacking pear files in normal locations) version in a secondary place. The bottom line is that it works but you get a php5 and it's not as good as it should be.

This also means that everytime there is a Security problem with php you need to rebuild the gui rpms and php. The gui rpms can also require the bluequartz group to patch the software before it can be built again... The problem as I see it is that only 1 member of the bluequarzt group does this...

With the good old RaQ4 perl based system you can do anything you want with the php and the GUI is not affected!

The issue, for me, with the Raq4 OS is that it is based on a now-ancient version of Linux, and all the surrounding programs (PHP, Perl, MySql, sendmail, bind, ...) are also ancient, at least in the basic release. It needs patch upon patch upon patch to be made reliable and secure.

I have checked and watched for years the version of Linux the RaQ4 uses and at this time there are no problems that anybody needs to worry about. As you might not be aware about the other things like sendmail and bind All build very nicely and are current for the needs of the RaQ3, RaQ4 and XTR installed base.

a Patched RaQ is a Current RaQ.

Your about to find out about this since you want to build php5. The gui is built on php4 and you have to maintain that and it's normal install directories and then install a second useally less "well built" (Lacking pear files in normal locations) version in a secondary place. The bottom line is that it works but you get a php5 and it's not as good as it should be.

Actually, no. CentOS+BQ separate the PHP used for the admin server and the one used for regular web servers. In fact, this is how I have upgraded PHP on Raq4s and older machines as well, in the past. Not too hard really. And I've been running PHP5 for months on my servers without trouble. Releasing it is just a matter of making RPMs and PKGs, which I've never had reason to do before.

This also means that everytime there is a Security problem with php you need to rebuild the gui rpms and php. The gui rpms can also require the bluequartz group to patch the software before it can be built again.

Again, not true. With the appropriate inputs to ./configure and a little bit of tweaking, rebuilding and re-installing PHP, MySql, and other tools is trivial -- I've done it many times, and it doesn't affect the GUI. The only difficulty is packaging it all into a set of reliable pre- and post-install scripts as part of the .pkg file, and of course those that provide those services certainly earn their money!

With the good old RaQ4 perl based system you can do anything you want with the php and the GUI is not affected!

I should note that I didn't invent the idea of separating the admin server from the user server -- people have been doing this on RaQs for years and years.

a Patched RaQ is a Current RaQ.

Again, not really true. A patched RaQ is still, at heart, a RaQ with a Linux 2.2 kernel, and this makes this really non-responsive to the original poster. The RaQ4 OS may (or may not) be the best choice for a RaQ4, but it isn't really an option for (e.g.) a box of 3GHz blade servers with new hardware. It doesn't have the drivers or hooks for new HW, it doesn't have MP support, etc, etc. A (heavily) patched RaQ is a patchwork quilt: it might keep you warm, but you wouldn't mistake it for whole cloth.

zeffie:
So, when did you last upgrade your Linux 2.2-kernel?
Oh right, the 2.2 kernel hasn't been updated since 2004-02-25 (http://www.kernel.org/).

I think you should drop the act. There are numerous bugs
in such an old Linux kernel. When running a serious web
hosting business you have to make sure you run a maintained
operating system. Just using patches for the packages won't
help if the kernel contains some major bug.

thinkcomp:
You should go with Nuonce.net free CentOS+Blue Quartz. You
will run a maintained Linux distribution with as much security
as you can ask. CentOS and Blue Quartz is a perfect match.
I run it on both my RaQ 3 (Strongbolt) and my Tyan GS10-server.
They both run without any issues. All Zeffie wants is to sell you
support for an ancient, insecure RaQ OS. Which you can't even
run on a white-box server.

So, when did you last upgrade your Linux 2.2-kernel?
Oh right, the 2.2 kernel hasn't been updated since 2004-02-25.

Yep thats right... and if you have a problem with this supported kernel perhaps you should talk to kernel.org about it.

I think you should drop the act.

I'm here helping people for free and it's no act... it's what I do! can you say the same?

There are numerous bugs
in such an old Linux kernel. When running a serious web
hosting business you have to make sure you run a maintained
operating system. Just using patches for the packages won't
help if the kernel contains some major bug.

ok.. so your saying there are bugs in the kernel. What bugs? what big hole do you know of that the rest of the linux community seems to of missied?

Maybe you should drop the sales act!

All Zeffie wants is to sell you
support for an ancient, insecure RaQ OS.

What are you talking about? I support anything redhat based including your strongbolt product... And I'm not lying to people and spamming in order to sell them someting like the strongbolt person is doing.

I'm honest!

BTW: Your Strongbolt kernel get's a holes all the time that require an urgent update. 5 in 2005, 7 in 2006 and already one this year, not that strongbolt is old enough to have 2 kernel updates... Now with the strongbolt kernel developer having a real job as he put it now... do you think he will keep up with the demand?

By the way, I have now successfully installed the CentOS + BlueQuartz ISO on a MaxAttach 4100 system. These are useful because they are 1U servers with a 550MHz Celeron or a 866Mhz P3 (depending on model), and 4 ATA drives. They can often be gotten for cheap on eBay (about $100-$200 + shipping is usually fair, depending on DRAM, disk, etc). Once loaded, they look just like Raq systems, but somewhat faster and of course with 4 disks.