Re: [cobalt-users] Cobalt Alternative

[Kris Dahl <krislists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 4/13/00 11:22 AM, Jeff Lasman at jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.

Aha!  We've got a K6 supporter in our midst! Your true colors have been
shown! heh

I would say that if anything, Intel certainly has a track record for
processors in servers that AMD just doesn't have.
 
> 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".

Which is the same reason why I recently opted to go with an older, true
server machine for my personal server for my consulting projects instead of
a screaming dual processor white box that I could have built for around the
same price.  Availability is more important than anything.


>> 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>.

Anyone who thinks that *anything* on that page is 'sexy' I think I may have
to report to the Pinkerton people (little /. humor there).

Even if it was sexy, its still not professional.  Overall It just doesn't
give me much confidence in them.

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

I actually don't really care what processor they use as long as its fast
enough.  Everything I need to run (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, mailman,
taper, etc.) all can be compiled on pretty much any architecture.  The
aforementioned recently acquired server happens to be PowerPC...  Its just
as you are suggesting the MIPS chip isn't really all that fast compared to
the other market leaders.  Combine that with the fact that it offers little
in the way of availability options (RAID, etc.) its sort of been reduced to
a high-density, low maintenance, low(er) usage machine.  But it does that
very well!

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

You know what's funny?  I see the Cobalt gear as like a 'Stepping Stone' or
'Starter Server' lately.  A lot of the people that I have been talking to
that have a Raq are happy with them, but they probably will be going with a
heavier-duty server for their next machine.  They sort of get their feet wet
with Linux on the Raq and then step up.

Is Cobalt building machines that will harbor repeat business?  Some would
argue that their support is lackluster (I would, of course, argue that you
bought it from the wrong VAR).  As their customers grow (in size and
demands), will Cobalt's product line match?  I could see a higher end
machine fitting nicely into the product line.

-k