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

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BT wrote:

> this makes little sense to me.......

Okay... let me try to be a bit more clear...

> for multiple websites you like cobalt.......

RaQs are designed for hosting multiple websites, they're optimized for
hosting multiple websites, and frankly, they're powered for hosting just
about the number of websites that the defaults are set for, presuming a
mix of mostly static sites, a few dynamic.

> for speciality websites you like something that isn't cobalt but has
> basically the same hardware and the same OS.....

If you've got one or two websites and you own them all, yes, I think
you'd be better off with a different solution.  I don't think a
one-gigaherz system with a gigabyte of memory is the same hardware at
all, and that's what I meant with the thousand-dollar price tag, though
frankly, it might be a bit (not much) more.

> so you are saying that the cobalt customisations, including the gui, make
> this huge difference in performance??

No, I'm saying that you're paying for the RaQ interface which will get
in the way of a lot of the things you may want to do.  It's a lart
harder to install software when you don't know how it's going to affect
the gui; how the gui is going to affect it.  Unless you need what the
gui offers (ease of setting up and maintaining multiple domains and
websites for end-users), why have it?

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