Re: [cobalt-users] 380GIG raq4 experience

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dav wrote:

> Does anyone have experience using a raq4 for a dedicated site
> w/400 gig xfer per month current average? (this is what the site is
> currently doing
> on another platform.)  20,000 daily visitors. Site is expected to double in
> 18 months.

The RaQ should be able to handle it; 400 Gigabytes of transfer per month
is roughly 80% of a T-1 line at 24/7.  A RaQ4 should NOT have a problem
saturating a T-1 line.

However, I'd consider several issues:

1. You're hammering the hard disk pretty hard.  You should probably be
using a cache to store the most hit parts of the site in memory if
possible.  However, that may not be easily doable on the RaQ; I've never
tried it.  If you don't do something about it, the drive will
continually move, and could overheat the box.  I'd watch the heat pretty
carefully.

2. You don't have much room for expansion.  I'd probably start with an
XTR if they're selling them yet; otherwise perhaps a Sun Netra or
something generic Linux (talk to me if you'd like, offlist).

> Site contents: Currently html, lots of pictures changed daily, with monthly
> updates
> of .mp3 interviews and supporting zip'd files.  This is not a music site.

It looks like the site is mostly static content; little or no database
activity.  If there's database activity, I'd definitely go for something
with more horsepower.

Why would I care if it's a music site <wry grin>?

> What is the real deal for a site with this much volume on a raq?
> We use raqs but don't have any single site with this much demand.

In my opinion, the RaQs are made for, and excell at, hosting multiple
sites.  Personally I like other, more flexible solutions for a
single-site computer.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux and Cobalt/Sun/RaQ Consulting
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 778-9980  *  fax: (702) 548-9484