Re: [cobalt-users] SSl Raq3

["Frank Cubillos" <cubillos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have generated a self signed certificate until we have our permanent
certificate. I set it up on our main domain. How do we "place" the forms in
the secure area. Sorry another newbie question!

Thanks

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Anthony Kinsey" <webmaster@xxxxxxx>
To: <cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] RaQ1 vs. RaQ3


> chris said:
>
> >interseting: we had a RaQ1 with 128 meg RAM. The RaQ1 is a 150MHz MIPS
> >processor. 60 sites on the box, but a site with 3 gigabytes traffic
> >daily; no perl scripts. The load on the box was usually from 2 to 6.
> >Speed was still excellent. We were rebooting the server once every month
> >(no swapping at all)
>
> >
> >We decided to move the site on its own RaQ3, with 256 meg RAM. The
> >traffic is the same, 3 gig daily, but the server starts swapping (with
> >256 meg RAM!) afetr 3 days and the CPU load is about the same as on the
> >RaQ1, maybe a little higher. We shall have to reboot the server twice a
> >week to avoid too much swapping, or to drastically lower the
> >MaxRequestsPerChild
>
> >
> >Conclusion: the speed improvement is certainly not obvious and the
> >memory management seems less efficient on a RaQ3 than on a RaQ1.
> >
> I have drawn my own conclusion, however, humble... And I stress humble.
> But it is my contention that this is the difference in a RISC based
> processor vs. a SISC based processor.  Someone correct me if I am wrong,
> but I remember the RaQ1 having a RISC Based processor, similar, if not
> the same found to be based on the Motorola PPC chip.  The simple fact is,
> or how Don Crabb(God rest his soul) once explained it to me in college,
> is that the RISC based processor has a very basic set of instructions,
> usually not more than 100.  Where as the SISC has 1000's.  There are
> essentially less things a RISC based processor has to do to function.
> This is the reason you find most PPC or RISC based chips being 2 to 3
> times faster than there counterparts at half the speed in Mhz.  This is
> also why the RISC does not get hot enough to melt lead.
>
> My guess is that the switch in processors is where the problem lies,
> rather than the architecture, or the software.  An old RaQ1 could easily
> flood a full T1 without sweating a beat.  I do not believe that the
> change in processors was so much a performance improvement/advancement,
> as it was a marketing decision.  Beyond all this, I begin to wonder what
> will happen when users of the SISC base architecture begin to realize
> that they cannot get much past 1000Mhz, where as the RISC is possible of
> well over 10,000Mhz, without super coolers if I might add.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
> VP Network Operations
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> www.bella-mia.com                     Maria's Internet Access
>                                             www.mia.net
>                                            www.dslone.com
> Bella Mia, Inc.
> 401 Host Drive                        e-mail: jer@xxxxxxx
> Lake Geneva, WI. 53147       Phone:(262)248-6759  Fax:(262)248-6959
> USA
> ________________________________________________________________________
>  National Internet Access, DSL and Colocation 1375+ numbers and growing!
>                        http://www.hostdrive.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To Subscribe or Unsubscribe, please go to:
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
>