Re: [cobalt-users] Newbie Questions (put away those paddles!)

["Steven Werby" <steven-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Sherrard <psherrard@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > POP, IMAP or web-based?  POP users tend to use less space than
> > IMAP and web-based and
> > POP uses *a lot* less system resources than the latter two.  Tell
> > us a little about
> > your typical mail user.  If you're going to use a RaQ3 as a mail
>
> POP3 based.. mostly business users, none with incredibly high demands.  Our
> customers do want up to 200 email addresses for each domain, however.  Can a
> single RaQ3 (able to support ~200 sites) handle the daily requirements of
> 40,000 mail users?? I do have other options (Have some nice Dual PIII 600's
> with a lot more to em than the RaQ's)..

No, not 40,000 mail users.  You'll have problems with disk I/O, RAM, CPU, and drive
space (you can install a larger HD, but that's not the critical parameter). Maybe
someone who's pushed the limits on mail users can give some feedback, but I'd
speculate that a RaQ3 could handle 1/10 the magnitude of normal mail users you asked
about.  Keep in mind that if your customers want *up to* 200 email addresses, I
suspect your average business site would actually use a much smaller number so email
for 200 business sites could be feasible.  I think a RaQ3 could receive mail for
40,000 mail users, but I don't think it can handle the simultaneous connections to
the POP server that will be experienced during much of the business day.  If some of
the 200 sites will be using heavy CGI and/or database interaction the 200 figure is
probably unrealistic.  Also, there's been a problem with a recent Cobalt upgrade that
broke functionality for RaQ3 with more than 60 sites.  A patch has been issued but I
haven't installed the upgrade or the patch so I'm not sure the problem has actually
been resolved.

> > What will these 400 servers be used for and how did you decide
> > 400 was the right
> > number?  RaQs are good basic web hosting appliances, are
>
> Well, I've got 11 hardware racks to fill for a server farm, and the small
> footprint of the RaQ,
> along with its GUI (ease of use for the customer, ease of implementation for
> us) made it a standout candidate.  We've purchased a bundle of servers for
> testing so far, and are definitely leaning in this direction.  They'll be
> used for both shared and dedicated webhosting, with a focus on a 1-client
> per server setup for businesses, and as many shared individual clients as
> can be put on a machine while maintaining high levels of performance.  We're
> looking at a large number of customers, so 400 was our first "ballpark"
> figure.  I imagine we'll have to expand as we go.

I think the RaQ3 may be a good option for some of your business.  For customers doing
vanilla web hosting and mail usage with little or no Linux background it's a good
match.  It's also a good match for customers who want to easily add sites and users.
There are other servers on the market with a small footprint that would definitely be
better for hosting heavy duty sites and sites containing critical data.  VA Linux has
a 2U server that you might want to look at.  With the number of customers you're
projecting I expect some will have critical data and want/need RAID and you'll
probably want some heavier duty machines to use as database servers.

> I've still got all my other RedHat boxes and an NT box or two also being
> used for webhosting if need-be.  Some clients may also have Databasing
> demands, and I was wondering how the RaQs "stacked up" as it were..

The RaQ3s come installed with PostgreSQL and MySQL can easily be installed.  Neither
are in the same class as Oracle or any enterprise level DB and neither are suitable
for mission critical database hosting for customers who_can_afford the added
functionality and reliability that the enterprise level DBs offer, but I feel
comfortable saying that 95+% of small to medium business customers will be
well-served with either product.  MySQL is faster than PostgreSQL and can easily
handle several hundred thousand queries per day of joined, indexed tables consisting
of a few thousand rows on a RaQ3 with RAM on the high end.

> We're
> running Oracle internally, but I don't think any of our customers  have that
> sort of death wish, so PostGre should be fine for them.

Oracle should not be hosted on a RaQ3.

Steven Werby {steven-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx}