Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Pizza boxes!

[microsol]

Oops, those ugly "pizza boxes" still exists? Haha, nothing better to make "pizzas" :-) Get a "real" server! Nothing better than a "REAL" double processor box with Plesk installed
We wouldn't even "touch" those boxes for seconday DNS

[DPI]

You realize that nobody here will take your opinion seriously now. Maybe some people like cobalt servers more than other servers? And also; They are extremely good at handling many page views, and many other things. So please dear sir, dont bash the cobalts, you know you love them.

[-Edward-]

Nothing wrong with cobalts if you know what your doing with them.

[sehe]

pizzabox
Cobalt

[Alex042]

Cobalts are a nice, pretty box with a good concept but they need to 'get the lead out' and start catching up with everyone else to be competitive or they might be ran over. I'd hate to see them disappear because I think the simplistic control panel and hardware appliance concept is a great idea for beginners. They just need to boost the hardware some.

[bobbyt]

It's nice to see some good old fashioned flame bait. Not a fan of the cobalts? I have both ensim and cobalt machines. I've had better stability overall with the coablts. Ensim seems to wreck random things and bogs out the machine with it's python scripts and custom hacks. Also making it harder to fix. I've even had people ask to move to cobalt machines because of the speed of the control panel and freedom of the shell. I find it to be a wonderful balance between a plain redhat machine and a control panel for the user without it totally taking over the machine.

Of course the downside is cobalt lacks reseller options and is more expensive for less resources but im really not too greedy. I barely use what I have

[Alex042]

Of course the downside is cobalt lacks reseller options and is more expensive for less resources but im really not too greedy.

Actually, you may consider limited reseller options being builtin to the Cobalt control panel by default. Afterall, the site admin can create user accounts and assigned space and ftp to them. They also typically have ASP support builtin which is normally an extra cost. These were some of the original reasons I had a Cobalt account.

[raq2dotcom]

they are great boxes for small websites. Not to mention all the PKGs written for them. They have been great boxes. Most of the problems are fixed via the knowledgebase.

We have mailscanner running on most of them. and use gallery for pictures.

We also have some Quad Xeon boxes for 2000 hosting apps. I may be old school but give me a big iron servers for the "high end" websites that need to be up and running.

Nothing like a nice raid config, three power supplies and a ton of memory. Linux does great but I see linux boxes "crap" on themselves for certain apps AND vice Versa - with the 2000 boxes. Neither is perfect both have their place.

Just my .02

[Cephren]

Good servers for mass amounts of small websites........
They work great with hundreds of static sites, (ie the 25 meg storage sites) but if you are looking for huge sites with intense cgi scripts and mysql, forget it.

[stevepel]

Originally posted by bobbyt
Of course the downside is cobalt lacks reseller options and is more expensive for less resources but im really not too greedy. I barely use what I have

If you're familiar with AutoControl Pro, you get a reseller panel. The reseller has their own customizable panel and it's very easy to set up a specified amount of space per reseller. Check it out here: http://www.directphp.com

[NyteOwl]

My biggest complaint with the RAQ 3 & 4 series was that you could, and still can assemble a 1U server using comparable, and indeed faster hardware and less hardware specific software for considerably less that the cost of a RAQ.

For example I saw a new 4i on eBay a week or so ago for $900 US. It was a 4i 256M ram and a as I recall a10G HD.

There is a small server I built out of all new parts for $700 CAD and it's a K6-2+ 550MHz, 512M ram and a 40G HD with both CDROM and floppy. The OS is a freely downloadable copy of Linux. The most expensive part was the $200 short depth 1U case/psu.

I don't understand the continued attraction for the 3 and 4 series at the prices I've seen, other than their snazzy appearance.

[stevepel]

Originally posted by NyteOwl

I don't understand the continued attraction for the 3 and 4 series at the prices I've seen, other than their snazzy appearance.

For some of us who have only been hosting for a year or so, it's an easy solution. The server is ready to go, affordable and easy to administer.

[bobbyt]

Saying goodbye to my lasy cobalt this week Moving on up to 2ghz/1.5gb/160gb redhat box. Have to keep up with the times.

[mikeh]

Although I personally wouldnt like to go back to RAQ for hosting, I had alot of fun playing with my old raq3 (with raq4i software and 512mb ram) a few were things like recompiling php, and moving upto the current version of apache (1.3.26 i think at the time) also, getting the big-kernel ROM flashes on there so i could boot into a 2.4.x kernel and compiling 2.4.18 which was great (shame about ptrace exploit though) on there, although i did find it was often heavily loaded, which was mainly SunONE ASP and the Admin server, but i still think they are great machines, and possibly the best looking rackmountable device i have ever seen. it did the job for me though, and at $79/m i really couldnt compain, i got rid of it having bought my own on ebay cheap, which is just sitting in a cupboard right now, chugging along on my network, doing basically nothing, just there (uptime is 102days )

i can see why people like them, i just need to find a use for mine.

[NyteOwl]

I don't deny they are useful little boxes, and I wouldn't turn down a 4i at a decent price, but for the technology they embody considering the current SOTA, the prices are outrageous.