Re: [cobalt-users] Cobalt Alternative

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kris Dahl wrote:
> It does look like this is a standard Celeron SBC type motherboard with a <2u
> case.  I just don't see enough value added.  I do applaud them for using the
> superior Celeron processor over the K6 one.

In your opinion.  Personally, I prefer the K6.

> One way that cobalt has added value is the LCD screen--you can configure
> quite a bit of stuff with this interface.  The RedRak has no such features,
> and I how you go about configuring it out of the box--I bet you need a
> monitor.  Or it may default to DHCP or a 192.168.1.100 type address.  I am
> concerned that this is a headed workstation that is being shoehorned into a
> headless environment.

Exactly.  A cheap clone shoved into a small case.

> What about availability and reliability?  These are two key features I look
> for in a server.  We've discussed the availability issue--no real RAID
> ability, etc.  Reliability?  I don't know about that either--sounds like
> these are all standard white box components--and there is nothing wrong with
> that, you've just got to take it with a grain of salt and realize that they
> are in the same class (or lower) than Cobalt.  This isn't going to provide a
> high availability, highly reliable system.

Cobalt has real engineers designing for a 1u case.  The RedRak appears
to have generic products stuck into a larger than 1u case.  Might it
work?  Yes.  The quality will remain "clone" or "whitebox".

> Personally I am not impressed with the company--I require professionally of
> my vendors.

Personally, I'd almost settle for a vendor I can reach on the phone.

> I think the homepage is amateurish at best--there is a
> contortionist with the product on her *ass*.  They are trying to use the
> metaphor of 'flexible', but I am concerned.

Could have been just a design from a typical madison avenue ad agency
that thinks sex sells <frown>.

> Many of the complaints (mainly the value adding, availability features,
> etc.) can be applied towards Cobalt as well.  And for me a web management
> interface simply doesn't add enough value for us to consider using them for
> our higher end applications.  I still help administer some Raq2's, and I
> think they are great for what they were designed for /what we're using them
> for (high density, low cost, low maintenance web & email hosting).  But for
> serious large-scale hosting I can't see them being practical.

RaQ2s really aren't too practical for anything else; their MIPS chip
just isn't standard enough, or fast enough.

> >From our situation, we don't need the sort of density that you can obtain
> with Cobalt gear, but we do need more advanced availability features, such
> as RAID 0 & 5, etc., hotswap drives, hotswap power supplies, redundant NICs,
> etc.  And they must be rack mountable.
> 
> ...<list snipped>...
> 
> So there are the list of the (in my opinion) top 4 web servers on the market
> right now.  Every one of them can get me a replacement for a failed
> component in 24 hours, every one has RAID capabilities, each one (except for
> the Dell--they just don't have the track record to back it up as much as the
> others) I'd bet my reputation on.
> 
> These all a couple steps up from the Cobalt gear (in price, performance,
> reliability, and availability)--so you have to take that into consideration.
> But if you are looking at getting some new webservers and you need some
> "heavier iron" there are some options for you.

As long as you realize these are NOTHING like the Cobalt RaQs.  Not in
design, not in target market.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672
Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 787-8589  *  fax: (909) 782-0205