Re: [cobalt-users] OT ish - real world cobalt server "serving" capacity comparisons.

["MikeM" <MyRaQ@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/20/2002 at 7:38 PM BT wrote:

|> We use the Cobalt for hosting multiple websites; that's what it's
|> designed for.  For specialty websites, complex database programming,
|> lots of programmed pages as opposed to static pages, we go the Linux
|> route.  You can do a 2U server (used) with roughly the same hardware
|> specs as the RaQ4 in the neighborhood of $350.  You can do an awful lot
|> better (new) at us$1,000 or thereabouts.
|
|this makes little sense to me.......
|
|for multiple websites you like cobalt.......
|
|for speciality websites you like something that isn't cobalt but has
|basically the same hardware and the same OS.....
|
|so you are saying that the cobalt customisations, including the gui, make
|this huge difference in performance??
=============


The rigors of working within the Cobalt GUI make "speciality" websites less easy to do.  For me it is not a performance issue, rather an issue of fighting the Cobalt GUI and its supporting programming and constructs.



B