Considering my own box. What are the for and against between these two? Any?

No raqs! Stay away from them!

Well thx for your reply. But why do you say that?

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Well thx for your reply. But why do you say that?

Raq/Cobalt takes over your system, and in a bad way. With Linux, a fairly good server solution as it is, you'd only need to configure and install what you want. You use this other, and it puts things on top of your already superior server software, like Apache. You're not going to get better than Apache alone, unless you go for something like Stronghold or maybe Zeus. Don't put crap on top of a good idea and think it's a good thing. It alters too many things, they (Cobalt, for example) don't want you alter anything, or your warantee will be in invalid. You have to wait for them to come out wiht patches to work with *their* software that's taken over and basically ruined your good system. There's more, but that's just some of the important aspects.

Tim,

Respectfully, I must disagree. The RaQ uses a standard version of Apache and does not take over anything on the system per se. With a RaQ you get a full, regular version of Apache, Sendmail, BIND, etc. Yes, Cobalt does publish their own patches for security holes, as does any other Linux Distribution.

The Cobalts run a modified version of Red Hat Linux, and there are some limitations to them. However, if you do not have a lot of experience with Linux they are a great box to start with. They are also great for hosting companies if you want to be able to hire sales/tech support people who are not all Linux savvy (read: want lots of money :)).

We've used them for three years, and have been very happy with the product, for what it does.

You will definitely get more power for less money from a standard Linux server, and there are other control panels out there you can use, aside from Cobalt's, but that does not mean they don't make a good product.

uuallan,

Good points. I will in fact agree that for the type's that are starting out or aren't very familiar, that it's probably the best option. However, that brings up a counter point to that aspect; If someone runs a web host, they should either inform their client's that they are not that knowledgeable, or not run a web host.

Everyone has to start somewhere, but if a hosting company must rely on a control panel or other type of thing such as Cobalt, then they will be in trouble as soon as the control panel or Cobalt system doesn't offer a certain feature, fails to perform the task well, has a bug that delays a task, or completely screws something up, etc. This is a situation that people must be aware of, and as we all know, most web hosts that must rely on these things for their hosts' performance and livelihood, are not going to be honest about how little they know.

People should know exactly what to do and how, about any possible issues, errors, or problems or requests they are faced with. Again, unless someone's notifying their client's, they better be honest and do just that -- notify them. People don't do this, because they will lose or not gain client's. Some might, which is fine. However, if people must count on these things for ease or specifically to be able to function, they should find a new line of work.

I didn't mean to say that this wouldn't have all the standard versions of the standard software, such as you listed, but that these don't allow options to do general or basic modifications, customizations or the like and if there's an error or something that must be done manually, these hosts that rely on it will be lost. It's not a good way to learn and definitely not a good thing to become dependent on.

I mentioned these security patches, due to the recent and very popular BIND exploit that so many people are being hit with. Cobalt takes longer, because they must have it incorporated into their system and program. This goes for many things -- things that people are at a disadvantage to be able to modify, with many things that Cobalt incorporates into their software. As you said yourself, there are limitations, which may or may not be an issue for a certain host, but the fact that people will give up these things for the sake of being able to understand the more simple interface, is frightfully reckless.

Of course, I'm in no way speaking in terms of anyone else running Raq's/Cobalt, other than the people that *do* depend on it or die without it. I.e., not for the technical savvy, ought to best learn about it, or find a new line of work. I don't find that a pro. Again, it surely has certain advantages, but in my opinion, it's a bad idea and I don't agree that there software is a good product. Of course, I make my comments based on my personal opinions from experience of having complete control and not being limited by software, which I despise happening. Moreover, the fact that is does indeed draw the amateurs to the product, which gives them the disadvantage of not learning well, if at all -- even if they wished to, due to the limits of the functions as well as the concern of warrantee violations if they do decide to do something manually that's against the terms of the Cobalt contract.

What I don't understand is why a RAQ4 is often even more expensive than a comparably equip Linux. I was running a comparison at Rackspace, and my jaws almost dropped. Needless to say, I'm sticking with Linux when the time comes for upgrades.

George

Originally posted by GeorgeC
What I don't understand is why a RAQ4 is often even more expensive than a comparably equip Linux. I was running a comparison at Rackspace, and my jaws almost dropped. Needless to say, I'm sticking with Linux when the time comes for upgrades.

George

Basically, one of the reasons, is the salable reason; being pre-packaged, in a manner of speaking. More expensive, because it's supposed to be easier to use, which is an attractive feature for people that aren't concerned or aware of the drawbacks, if that's even relevant to them. Of course, that's not to say that all Raq users are in that boat. There seems to be enough provider's that run or offer Raq's that seem knowledgeable... I just don't personally see a point to using one, unless someone gave you a very good deal that made it a better deal than another system with lesser hardware.

Hmm. What about rackshacks $99 then?

The added cost is for the software. If you take a stock linux server and add Plesk for $550, or cPanel, or ensim or sphera, etc....

It provides a stock, ready to go interface for you and users. This is worth something, and if you don't think so, ask a client of a host that runs servers without a control panel for their end users. Ask the host too.

Yes, you can create your own CP, that goes without saying. Not everyone has the time, resources, or knowledge to do so.

There are advantages to the system and disadvantages and your have to weigh them and decide what is right for you.

So what do you think are disadvantages of the RAQ deal then? Only sign d/side seems to be you have to use Interbase rather than say, MySQL.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So what do you think are disadvantages of the RAQ deal then? Only sign d/side seems to be you have to use Interbase rather than say, MySQL.

You can use MySQL on a RaQ. We have it installed on all of our servers (although we actually run MySQL on a seperate server).

allan

[Edited by uuallan on 03-05-2001 at 10:39 AM]

Yes, I know. Sorry, I meant without invalidating their terms since its not std.

Originally posted by Chicken
The added cost is for the software. If you take a stock linux server and add Plesk for $550, or cPanel, or ensim or sphera, etc....

It provides a stock, ready to go interface for you and users. This is worth something, and if you don't think so, ask a client of a host that runs servers without a control panel for their end users. Ask the host too.

Yes, you can create your own CP, that goes without saying. Not everyone has the time, resources, or knowledge to do so.

There are advantages to the system and disadvantages and your have to weigh them and decide what is right for you.

If you were getting the impression that I was saying that web hosts shouldn't offer a control panel, you've misunderstood me. I simply said that web hosts shouldn't count on them for technical reasons, as for the purpose of using them due to a lack of understanding how to do things yourself without the use of a control panel. For users though, a control panel is certainly a must. I think the prices people ask for the control panel licenses are outrageous and ridiculous though. However, that's surely something to consider about the question, in addition to my previous comments about just *how* and *why* it's being considered.

Cobalt's have an advantage only if you will be hosting a number of domains and do not wan't the admin hassle of adding new accounts and email accounts.

On the other hand if you are only hosting one site and require a more hardware robust system than Regular Linux is your best bet. Are you hosting htis yourself or colocating it?

Originally posted by hostadvisor
Cobalt's have an advantage only if you will be hosting a number of domains and do not wan't the admin hassle of adding new accounts and email accounts.

On the other hand if you are only hosting one site and require a more hardware robust system than Regular Linux is your best bet. Are you hosting htis yourself or colocating it?

Well, it'd simple enough to write (or get) some sort of program that will do some basic administration tasks easier or automatically (depending), that would serve the task just as quickly as these other options, which will end up being fee and function in the same manner. I'm sure there must be some type of free programs that people could install on their server... if not, I don't see that as being too far off in the future. All these are doing, is what you'd be doing via command line for the most part. It's simple to even hack together a quick script that will execute these commands with the proper information passed to them. This is what server administration used to be about, writing scripts to automate and ease the tasks involved, which is why control panel's came into play. :-) This is still extremely easy to accomplish and that's all these do anyway, with a simple GUI via HTML output.

Multi-domain. Looking at rackshack/4webhosting on the RAQ side and webtapestry.co.uk for the Reg Lx.

UK bandwidth is off this planet.

You are a person of so few words. Trouble is we need a few to communicate full meaning!

Ask them what they charge for bandwidth, you may as well buy gold!

The Cobalt Raq is an appliance. It doesn't "take over"
anything there's nothing for it to take over. It's an
integrated hardware and software solution. Basically,
you throw the thing in a 19" rack, answer a few questions
about network setup, and you have a functioning web server.

It's more expensive than building your own Linux box for
the same reason that a microwave oven is more expensive
than raw sheet metal, a magnetron tube, etc. It's a
functioning appliance instead of something you have to
build from scratch. Of course if you want your microwave
to include lasers to brown the food, then you're probably
going to have to build it yourself. The Raq is a great
solution for people who want to host web sites instead of
becoming Linux sysadmins, but you trade the complete
configurability of a basic Linux system for the ease of
use of a preconfigured appliance.

Scott

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes, I know. Sorry, I meant without invalidating their terms since its not std.

First, I wouldn't worry too much about invalidating anything. I've not lasted more than a few days without that happening, heh, and most users are the same way. I'm not even sure if installing mySQL invalidates anything anyhow.

You asked about the disadvantages, and first, I'll just say that the post above this one (if it is still the one above this one by the time I'm finished), was well said. it does what it does, generally well.

There are quirks which have driven everyone a bit batty, but what can you do. 4webspace has those Raq3's for $100/mo no set up fee, so if you really hated it for any reason, the most you'd be out is $100. Can't really say that with many other server offers.

The rackshack has great deals as well, though they are a bit new and there are less users here that can tell you about their service.

I think you first have to decide if you the RaQ will do everything you need it to. If so, then try it out. They remind me of the old VW bugs. A bit odd looking, quirky sometimes and leak oil a bit, even a bit underpowered, but they have a pretty strong following of users and they get the job done reasonably well.

Originally posted by sbabb
The Cobalt Raq is an appliance. It doesn't "take over"
anything there's nothing for it to take over.


Basically Cobalt is RAQ, RAQ is Cobalt. It changes how things work, it uses different paths (no big deal), works the way it wants it to work and you can't change those things, it's integrated into the system to where you can't just set up things often enough, without their software doing it. It can't possibly do all the things you'd be able to do, modify or customize otherwise. I'm aware of many people running these that have to tell client's that they can't offer a certain feature, because it's either not an option on Cobalt, or it will conflict with it or create problems throughout the web server configurations. They tell people to not alter anything, or it'll violate their warrantee, it implants it's foot prints all over the init services and booting scripts and more. If that's not "taking over", I don't know what is! Sure, if you could install Windows on top of it, it might still be a Linux system, but why use Windows tools to interface and configure things, when you can do it the right way?

This isn't simply about either using command line or a control panel interface... this is about limitations, augmentations and what you can and can not do, how it works and what it works with and changes. Depending on your level of experience and what you want to do and how far you want to go with configuring the system beyond a "control panel" option for security and performance reasons, depends on how you look at it. This is one of the things mentioned, of how exploit patches must come from Cobalt to be valid under warrantee and to work, as it must be incorporated into their system. That alone says that things are drastically different in some aspects at least. This is what I call 'taking over'. But I also stated that it depends on what you're using it for and need it for. I don't want to argue things about how people that don't know the differences and limitations aren't knowledgeable or visa-versa, I'm just pointing out the facts that it isn't as simple as you portray it to be.


It's an
integrated hardware and software solution.


Yes, it takes over. It's part of the system. You can modify this aspect, you can't remove it, you can't install certain things without it doing it. Therefore, it controls the system.


Basically,
you throw the thing in a 19" rack, answer a few questions
about network setup, and you have a functioning web server.


True, it's likely quicker than other installs. But, that's also one of the reasons why people use Windows98 rather than WinNT servers at home. This is the reason why most people run Windows rather than Linux. This is why more people install and run Linux over FreeBSD. Quick and easy installs and use are surely an advantage, I'm not arguing it. I just don't think that's an advantage in a web server environment for people that count on their web hosts to be able to trouble shoot and solve and prevent problems and the like. If the control panel doesn't offer any help, what will you do? If the problem lies in the code of Cobalt or something that Cobalt has "helped you with and made it easier and faster" and you can't change that without conflicts, errors, opening up security holes or not being able to really configure the install or options, what will you do?



It's more expensive than building your own Linux box for
the same reason that a microwave oven is more expensive
than raw sheet metal, a magnetron tube, etc. It's a
functioning appliance instead of something you have to
build from scratch. Of course if you want your microwave
to include lasers to brown the food, then you're probably
going to have to build it yourself.


I think this is getting a bit ridiculous now. I don't see how that can possibly compare. That's like telling people to take a bus to work, rather than building a car to drive to work. How about they simply learn to operate a car and do that? However to make a point about that, if you're a professional race car driver, are you going to trust your engine, brakes and the like to the stock Honda model which would require special diagnostic tools to be able to trouble shoot the problem, not find the problem or have a fix for the problem until Honda made their special new part that will only be available from them, rather than building it yourself and putting all the quality parts in, have a superior product because you understood how to do it and the engine parts are available anywhere and ports right over without any hassle or specific, special considerations to this specific car and model that's stock?

I mean, that's like saying "My car is automatic and I don't need a manual transmission, you shift manually if you want to, old school!", when manual shifting is in all the racing cars for a reason and that is partly for control. Don't let things do things for you, *unless* they do the same thing. Cobalt doesn't do this, it doesn't configure and add and modify files in the same way. There is a difference.



The Raq is a great solution for people who want to host web sites instead of becoming Linux sysadmins,


Right, but they shouldn't be calling themselves a web host, unless they know how to administrate it or have someone to do it for them and hope it can be done without any problems arising. Cars run fine, until they need an oil change, lube job, new battery, gas, etc... I wouldn't trust an amature home security guy with a nifty little "do it yourself at home" home security alarm kit either. Either you're qualified to do the job, or you are not. Work with the cheaper, easier models, sure, but don't rely on them.


but you trade the complete configurability of a basic Linux system for the ease of use of a preconfigured appliance.


And that easy to use appliance holds you back beyond a level of what you prefer. You made good points, but I still don't see how people see it as that simple of a decision when there's a lot more to it. I can only speak as a person that's seen web hosts run these and not be able to offer some things that are very basic even, as well as the structure of the system and the limitations in the shell environment. It's a horrible thing, if you ask me.

It just so much reminds me of something along the lines of automatic doors at the super market. It's a preference and easier to be more "intuitive" for the people that don't know to push, rather than pull. Then, everyone wants to go home for the night and the doors stay open and won't close. Now, you have to call that particular door company to fix it, if they can. Then you find out that this is common and you have to wait for the company's manufacturer to build a new door switch and this door remains open and you can't shut it, or the supports that hold the wall will fall down or it will fry the power cables to it. So, you have to wait on them to fix it, with a new part that needs to be made, and still say it's just more convenient and you lose some of the functionality, but how it's only hardware?

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying or I've read over it too fast? I mean, it's not like people are faced with a choice of a control panel or rocket science, it's just a matter of people should be qualified to do the other, if they are going to claim they are qualified to run a web server. People's sites, files, reputations and security and money are at stake. I'd feel pretty foolish having to be stuck with not being able to help someone, let alone not knowing how. Of course, and again, I'm not saying that people that run Raq's don't have this knowledge, but most don't and that's obviously why they are popular for the majority of reasons. Fine, run one, but not because you *have to*, is all I'm saying.

[Edited by Tim_Greer on 03-05-2001 at 07:55 PM]

Thanks to all for your comment. Chicken: I like the look of the rackshack deal because of the ChiliSoft & ASP.

I want to bring up the hardware issues as well. I have heard
two Opposite opinions regarding Cabolt. I have some customers using them for quite a long time and told me they are very happy with them. On the other hand, customers complain Cabolt hardware are not as reliable and turn to Intel based instead. On issue regarding Cabolt is their NICs keep burning out. Has anyone faced the same problems with their H/W or they really live up to their reputations?

PS: Just a recent issue about RAQ's posted on this very board illustrates how terrible these things are and a problem of simply enabling SSI will possibly (or specifically?) void the warrantee? Geez.. http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=6624 That's about all I'll make an effort to say in this subject, as I've already covered the general issues with these.

To be honest, I read that post and if you've ever run a RaQ, you know that enabling SSI for a site doesn't involve any of that. So I really don't get that whole thing (but I suppose that's besides the point).

Originally posted by Chicken
To be honest, I read that post and if you've ever run a RaQ, you know that enabling SSI for a site doesn't involve any of that. So I really don't get that whole thing (but I suppose that's besides the point).

True, since it's ridiculously easy to do, but the fact that it warns people about possibly voiding their warantee by enabling SSI, seems really bad. Maybe I didn't read that user's post close enough.

Hmmm. You seem to have some issues with the RaQ, Tim.
I'm sure that I'm not going to change your opinions,
but I'd like to clarify a few things.

RaQ is one of the products made by Cobalt. Qube and
Velociraptor are a couple of Cobalt's other products.
The Cobalt == RaQ statement isn't accurate any more
than saying that Ford is Mustang and Mustang is Ford.

I searched the PDF file version of the RaQ 4 manual at
Cobalt's web site and I could find no mention that
enabling SSI would void any warranty. It did say that
mucking with some configuration files might void the
warranty (which makes some sense, since they're supporting
a pre-configured appliance and changing that configuration
could be viewed similarly to changing the motor in your
dishwasher and then expecting factory support.) There
were numerous mentions of how to enable SSI, so I have
to think that it's supported.

Someone mentioned going with Intel-based hardware instead
of Cobalt. The RaQ XTR uses a Pentium III CPU, and the
other Cobalt products appear to use "Intel compatible"
(AMD? Cyrix?) CPUs, according the their datasheets.

I agree that understanding how your hardware and software
work is a good thing for a web hosting company, but that
doesn't mean that they need to build their own hardware
and configure their own software. I'd think that hosting
companies need to make a sensible business decisions about
such things. It seems to me that building and maintaining
custom configurations would let me offer services that
some people would be willing to pay higher prices for. On
the other hand, having standardized, pre-configured server
appliances might let me cut some costs so that I could offer
a slightly lesser set of services at a lower cost, and that
would appeal to other customers. Of course, the customer
would like the hosting company to offer all the slick,
customized services, unlimited bandwidth, and several things
that probably haven't been invented yet for under a dollar
a month, but that's not happening.

Life is trade-offs. The RaQ fits my requirements quite
nicely, but that doesn't mean it will fit yours, and your
solution might not fit mine.

Scott

OK, I looked at the SSI/Warranty thread, and it looks like
they're quoting something from Cobalt that's two years old.

I don't know what the deal was two years ago, but the
current docs seem to be reasonably happy with enabling SSI.

The original poster wanted to enable SSI for ".html" file
extensions, which isn't what the docs tell you how to do.

I've found that making a web server parse every ".html"
file for SSI is a fine way to ensure that your viewers
don't have to deal with that pesky "loads too fast" problem.
I went back to having ".html" docs load served straight and
".shtml" docs grind through the SSI module. Kept the CPUs
a bit cooler, too.

Originally posted by sbabb
I've found that making a web server parse every ".html"
file for SSI is a fine way to ensure that your viewers
don't have to deal with that pesky "loads too fast" problem.


Sbabb, welcome to WHT! I found this comment amusing (the pesky 'loads too fast' problem, heh), and agree.

Originally posted by sbabb
OK, I looked at the SSI/Warranty thread, and it looks like
they're quoting something from Cobalt that's two years old.

I don't know what the deal was two years ago, but the
current docs seem to be reasonably happy with enabling SSI.

The original poster wanted to enable SSI for ".html" file
extensions, which isn't what the docs tell you how to do.

I've found that making a web server parse every ".html"
file for SSI is a fine way to ensure that your viewers
don't have to deal with that pesky "loads too fast" problem.
I went back to having ".html" docs load served straight and
".shtml" docs grind through the SSI module. Kept the CPUs
a bit cooler, too.

Well, all humor and obviousness aside, I certainly have valid reasons for not liking this idea. I never claimed these are valid reasons for everyone, just that some of them might be. The car analogy was off though and you misunderstood what I was saying about it. I didn't say they don't make other products, I was talking Raq's running the Cobalt server software. Whatever else they make, is not relevant to that fact. I didn't mean to say that everyone should have to know (and do) how to fully install and configure and whatnot their entire web server, which I've already explained what I meant in my previous posts.

I agree that hosting companies need to make a sensible business decisions about such things as well and I simply didn't find it reasonable to go for the system that offers the easier out, rather than learning how it really works. Had they, they'd likely not wish to choose to use it for the reasons I've outlined previously. This isn't just about custom configurations and installs to be able to offer more, it's to make sure you're not stuck not being able to fix a problem, prevent one or secure the system or have it run with the best performance as per stability and speed. The interface offered alone, can not ensure these things, even if some can be done still via command line. This is all I'm say, or one of the things anyway.

It doesn't appeal to me or a lot of customers, if the administrator doesn't offer anything beyond the problems and limitations that do come with the standard pre-configured installs and many things can suffer do to it, including performance and security -- one of those "pesky" little things people are concerned about, and why people aim to find a good price with a quality service with a staff that understands and offers the safety of doing things with the required knowledge to have been in this business in the first place. These are not things that are so complex or whatever, that they will make the costs for the service raise. I don't see any reason for that, since what I am saying is part of the job involved and what is supposed to be offered in theory and reality anyway. Why try and beat that or get around it or make it easier by offering less quality? That's what we're here for. :-)

Again, you can see that this isn't about the hosting company offering any 'slick, customized services', it's about what people should expect to get as per quality of the service for the reasons I've outlined. Your mention of "unlimited bandwidth, and several things that probably haven't been invented yet for under a dollar a month", was a poor attempt and trying to act like I'm being unreasonable and wanting to promise costly or impossible things. That's ridiculous and has *nothing* to do with the other. I simply say that people will have an inferior service for the reasons outlined, less performance and secure service, as well as delays and problems due to a lack of knowledge on how to really run a web host server or limitations from being able to properly, due to this software and you're reaction is "Oh, Tim thinks people have to build a microwave from sheet metal and try and offer things that are impossible or that a web host would be crazy to offer at the same rate -- he may as well be saying he can offer unlimited bandwidth, ha ha!". Yeah, real smart conclusion. geez.

You're right that "Life is a trade-off" and some people only care about cutting the costs, and don't stop to think that what I speak of doesn't cost anymore to accomplish and is required knowledge and should not be limited, because you want pre-configured things to be able to claim it's a quality service when it's not possible it can compare. This is what web hosts need to know, it is their job. Some people choose to trade-off quality service for lower cost, which is their choice, but it will end up costing you more anyway and I've seen enough kids or unqualified people running services without this ability or access and their service suffers. It's your opinion if you don't agree it's to that extreme, but all the qualified hosts will not agree with that logic, if they run a quality service. Also, it's fine if your opinion is different than mine, but don't sink so low to try and act like I'm being irrational because I think that simple to general to even custom configurations to result in better performance and security is required, as well as being able to fix and prevent problems -- even if there are other benefits -- and that just says it all.

"The RaQ fits my requirements quite nicely, but that doesn't mean it will fit yours, and your solution might not fit mine."

Exactly, so don't act like I said no one should ever use it, or that I'm being irrational and saying web hosts should go out of their way or do risky or foolish things, unless a better service and knowledge is assumed to be a cost risk? Nonetheless, I've never disagreed with the fact that it might not be best for your or others, and some people need it and some people don't care and just want to pay to have it set up and get paid to go in and add a user's information to a control panel and let the money roll in. That is a solution far too many people are comfortable with by itself, and I just think there should be more to the service, as well as the knowledge and ability to not have the service suffer in the manner in which I have outlined.

These points can't be argued in whole, only to what extent, which is a preference and opinion that might not be important to you, even if you deny they exist. Now, let's stop pretending that I'm saying people should learn things they'll never use or need to use, or that I'm being ridiculous saying a friggin' web host should have the knowledge and ability to do web hosting to the best of their ability to make it a quality service -- an again, since that IS what the job of a web host is and the required knowledge and ability, this is not unreasonable, ridiculous or a costly thing -- it costs no more and it's that complex for the most part, which is the sad part. Disagree is you like, just don't contort what I've said, it's all pretty clear.

We been using RaQs since they came out, just a few weeks ago we finally gave up on them and went to a Linux server. Its been very great and I don't think we would ever go back to a raq unless it was an emergency.

If you like simplicity, but allot of restrictions and someone to help you every time something goes wrong, the raq may be your best bet.

But if you like freedom, the cpanel and Linux combo is the best, It actually offers alot more and is alot more reliable and stable then even the raq5's

It comes down to the fact that the raqs are just money machines and a quick solution to anyone's problems, but having to babysit the server almost 24 hours a day, services going down and not restarting for no reason, the raqs for you :)