Re: [cobalt-users] (no subject)

["Steve Werby" <steve-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Dylan Smith" <dyls@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> But it's unlikely
> that a CobaltRaQ2 with an 8GB disk can even *generate* that much traffic
> (short of a DOS attack).

The size of the HD won't really affect the potential throughput on a server,
but the amount of RAM will make a huge difference.  I've seen a RaQ4 with
512MB of RAM which was primarily being used as a webserver serving up pure
HTML files which had as much as 400 GB of traffic per month (which isn't to
say it couldn't handle more).  I agree with Dylan that a RaQ2 (especially
those with very little RAM, like the RaQ2s hosted by rackshack.net) that is
used like the average webserver will have CPU load problems that will
prevent it from achieving 150 GB per month.  Perhaps rackshack.net can
correct the atrocity of stating that they allow up to 150 GB per month of
data transfer by reducing their posted amount to 30 GB and charging for
traffic that exceeds that level.  <grin>

--
Steve Werby
President, Befriend Internet Services LLC
http://www.befriend.com/