Dedicated Server

Cobalt Raq4 Advantage ?

[David]

I am hosted on a Raq4. It seems that every thing is more difficult then a basic linux setup and much care has to be taken in installing upgrades and new packages.

Is there an advantage to being on a Raq ?

I am tring to decide if it is worth the effort to learn the in's and out of a Raq set-up or if I should be spending that time setting myself up on a Redhat box elsewhere.

Are the Raq's that different ? Or am I just not seeing it clearly ?

David

[volatilegx]

The RaQ, being an easy-to-set-up out of the box solution, comes preconfigured. That being said, it's difficult if not impossible to configure its apache conf files to work properly if you are trying to do anything weird, like adding mime types, etc. I personally hate the RaQ servers.

[littleman]

>I personally hate the RaQ servers.
Me too, for the same reason.

[David]

Yep Me to .. Guess I need to look to make a change.

Does anyone have something good to say about the RaQ ?

[Vishal]

Does anyone have something good to say about the RaQ ?

Your web site is hosted on RaQ and is still working. :)

[David]

There is always something to be thankful for, it has treated me very good :). It's not a hardware issue it's just plain old configured differnt (I Think).

I have three serious Linux Books and it is rare to find a file where the book says it should be.

[webdiversity]

I think to be fair to a RAQ4 sometimes a lot of the problems lie with the hosting company and not the actual box itself.

I used to host sites with another host (RAQ4) and couldn't do anything remotely sexy with it.

I now have a dedicated server (RAQ4) and can do whatever I like with it.... but still can't do anything sexy with it, but that's because of user input and not the blue box.

[CHC]

We run several RaQ4 and RaQ3 servers in addition to some Ensim "white boxes" and have found that the Cobalts are so incredibly easy to use.

It is true that the GUI limits what you can and can't do (i.e no facility for removing a PKG once installed) but all you have to do is stick the superb (and free!) Webmin package on and then you've got all the control you would ever want.

Once you've set up a few virtual sites, even a novice can install a new vs, including email and DNS configuration in under 5 minutes.

Anyone considering a RaQ4; go for the 256Mb, the 128Mb is just a tad slow when the boxes fill up.

[dogboy]

cobalts were basically designed for idiots:) That said, I have had at least a half dozen of them:)

I have a love/hate relationship with them.... one one hand, I love the fact that not knowing even a lick of anything, I can still get online, grab a domain out of my list, set up a site for it, add it to my dns, create users and fwd mail, and be uploading data within 10 mins all by myself... no need to call anyone, no need to pay anyone, instant gratification.

the bad side, however, is backing the server up *properly*.... and then restoring it *properly* after you had to wipe the disk. The problem is this weird mirroring system they made up to connect the GUI. This is the same issue that plagues software too. Instead of dealing with the *domain*, you deal with 'sites' which correlate to a domain.

ex.) pretend you have 3 domains....

domain1.com
domain2.com
domain3.com

....you set them up the first time in order.... then you get badly hacked and have to wipe the disk.... then you set up the sites again but this time in a slightly different order, say:

domain2.com
domain1.com
domain3.com

and then you try to take all the files you backed up and stick them back in.... well, that won't work because the first time around the cobalt based everything on the *order* you set the sites up

domain1.com used to be 'site 1'
domain2.com used to be 'site 2'
domain3.com used to be 'site 3'

.... but now
domain2.com is 'site 1'
domain1.com is 'site 2'
domain3.com is 'site 3'

so now you just screwed up domains 1 and 2 by swapping content. (...hope you don't have nonadult and adult sites on the same box, b/c you are going to have some surprised surfers:) )

Even the best backup solutions suck for a cobalt.... that is if you *have* to wipe the disk. If you *don't* have to wipe the disk, then the 'GUI restore' should work on a site by site basis.... you just don't want to kill that site structure architecture.

Now, if you happen to be a little smart, you may be able to go in behind the gui and try and restore, but the chances are high that you will break the GUI and then you will either have to wipe it and restore, or stay in a non gui environment.

Other than that, DNS is hard to back up as well, and as far as I know, there is no way to restore the 'user' data if you have to 'restore'.... so if Bubba on domain3.com set up a new user, with a special email addy like [e-mail] and he is fwding it to [e-mail]
that will be lost unless you write it down.

So basically if you just want to set up a few static sites, your probably ok, but if you want MySQL, etc go somewhere else.... cobalts have lots of troubles with tricky stuff.

The main issue though, for me, is backing the server up... This is what I have going on...

- I got a 3rd party daily incremental backup solution.... goes back 30 days

- every once in a while, I grab the server file that tells you the order the sites were set up.

-I have a spreadsheet with domains, IPs, users/pws, email accounts

- I have a custom script (courtesy Steven Edwards) that goes into the gui, like a person on a browser, and adds all my dns entries again

...so basically I think of a raq as something that once liberated me, but now also confines me.

So unless you are just like me.... an uneducated, non-technical, button pusher, with no hopes of progressing....I would look elsewhere.

[canadian 3dartist]

All this talk about RaQ server appliances has gotten me hungry to say try some hosting company.

They are going to be having the new RaQ 550 at a very good price. Just wanted to let you all know thats all.

:)

Welcome to WebmasterWorld canadian_3dartist! Unfortuately including a URL violates our Terms of Service and it has been removed. Your post reads like an advertisement which is also not permitted here... Check your Sticky Mail (available from the Control Panel at the top of your screen) for details.

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 2:04 pm (utc) on Aug. 6, 2002]

[richlowe]

I've used a few RAQ4's in the past with Linux and Apache. Worked well, a little difficult to configure when I wanted to do something different. I liked the RAQ as it's a good, out-of-the-box server.

Richard Lowe

[Crazy_Fool]

>>cobalts were basically designed for idiots
thats one reason i like them - idiot hosting customers can actually use the cobalt servers. as they are popular machines, people are more willing to move their sites from another company to mine, knowing that the servers are the same and their site will run fine with us.