Re: [cobalt-users] next time just buy a PC

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Benedict wrote:

> But then, the fulltowers are much more silent than the Cobalts,
> and can contain much more data and speed, obviously.
> So, what one would lose is beyond me...

The RaQs make a bit more noise because their fans, being small, have to
be higher velocity.  Our cabinet full of RaQs doesn't make as much noise
as the airconditioner systems keeping our colo room cool.  Data and
speed?  I'm not sure; we can put two 80 Gig drives into a RaQ, and
saturate 3 T-1 lines with the kind of small static sites the RaQs are
designed to host.  If you want something faster, build or buy a 2U
solution; we host those for us$250/month <smile>.

> > Win2000 Pro is NOT a server solution.
> 
> You mean; Microsoft does not sell it as a server solution,
> that's not the same as it not being a server-solution.

It's not licensed or supported as a server solution.  Personally if I
were a customer I wouldn't want my site hosted on an unsupported
platform being used in violation of it's license.

It's also a moot point, because if you're in the hosting business you
can get as many W2kAS licenses as you need at no charge; you don't have
to buy the chaper Pro licenses.

> I can run Apache on it, with IMAP support, PHP 4, Perl, SSL

None of which wre designed for the platform.  Except SSL and possibly
your mail-server platform.  Mail platforms for MS are quite expensive as
well.  Until recently I was the North American distributor for one of
them; it was the least expensive solution and ran us$2600 for an
unlimited user license.  A bit more than sendmail <wry grin>.

> and I bet the network stack will be faster than that
> of a Qube or Cobalt RaQ, because it's using more and
> faster memory, and a faster mainboard and faster CPU, and
> in most cases faster data-speeds from and to HD as well.

I won't bet.  I'd be happy to test some real world situations; put a
server into my data center, we'll put the same sites on both, and we'll
do some real-world testing <smile>.

> Over time I have learned to tweak Windows so that it works faster.

That's nice.  Are you suggesting you'll teach everyone who goes this
route, or that you're suggesting we work more slowly than you?  In fact
is that why you're recommending Windows, so you'll have an advantage
over us which you know you don't have as long as we host with linux
<vbg>?

> Well, the convenience goes down the drain if we're talking
> backing up the onboard harddrive, mirroring it all on-board,
> replacing the hardware.
"Over time" we've "learned" to keep our Cobalt solutions backed up and
running well.  

> Also, if it doesn't work, you depend
> on Cobalt mailinglists or expensive service personnel.

And you depend on what?  Your own knowledge (we've got our own, too, you
know), or expensive support solutions from Microsoft or third-party? 
Those are available for Cobalt, too, you know.  In fact, in the spirit
full disclosure I should urge you to read my "sig-lines"; you'll see
that's exactly what we are; a linux/Cobalt support company.

> A Cobalt Sun Linux O.S. version is like a Compaq or HP PC.
> When you have trouble with it, you depend on some company's
> shell to get your stuff working again. A no brand PC is easier
> to maintain, if you ask me.

On that we agree.  They're just not ideal solutions for a hosting
company.  Perhaps instead of a Qube, as a gateway/file-server/intranet
server for a small business, but even there I doubt it.  There are a lot
more people happily using their Qubes for those purposes than there are
complaining on these lists.  And unless the small company is willing to
pay for the expertise of a full-time system admin, they're probably a
lot better off with an appliance such as a Qube.

> Solutions for Linux or Windows
> problems are everywhere on the net, whereas for Qubes they
> are rather hard to find, if you find them in time at all.

Sure.  They're just time-consuming to implement, and require both
knowledge and experience, neither of which come cheap.

> Really? I doubt that. Simple example:
> To exchange files from and to a Win2000 Pro box
> locally can be done with access to the entire drive
> without having to type commandlines, by using Windows Commander
> for example. This is much faster than having to chmod stuff
> and telnetting and ftp-ing everything using the right permissions.

If you've ever used a Qube then you know you're talking FUD.  Qubes (and
other similar appliances) easily plug into Microsoft networks.  Then
they work the same way.

> I have downloads locking up at the start because of strange
> DNS-issues I would never have to deal with before.

Then you're doing something wrong.  The Qube doesn't need to run DNS; it
only needs to have two DNS server addresses loaded into it, just like
your Windows box.

> Solutions for that are missing in the manuals.
> The Win98SE box is running PegasusMail, BPFTP and Apache using
> only a 200 MHz PI, 128 MB SDRAM and performance of the webserver is
> way better than Apache on the Qube. Version number is higher as well.

And how many small companies have the expertise to integrate all of
this.  As I said, two different markets.

> (This surprised me, yes.)
> Also, whenever some update.pkg appears, it seems to overwrite
> many of my customisations and set it all back as if it was new.
> With Windows you won't have that,

ROTFLOL!  I've seen so many windows systems broken with what should have
been a simple install.  When was the last time you installed a Real
client to listen to music and found out you couldn't download files from
the net anymore?  Windows has a lot more horror stories than every other
system on the market taken together.

> no install would ever touch
> httpd.conf or php.ini, they operate separately.

Because they're NOT standard windows programs.  And as I said, most
Windows users couldn't even dream of getting them working properly. 
Different market.

> And for backups you simply backup the entire IDE-drive's content
> over the local network. When the HD fails, you have a copy of it
> to replace the other one.

You really don't.  The first time you'll try this you'll find out all
the "gotchas".  You cannot make a bootable hard drive that way, and your
inexpensive PCs that' come with the software no longer come with Windows
CD-Roms to reinstall from.  Really.

> For a Qube the backup either needs to be
> RAID, or you need to find a way to have an exact image copy
> of the drive, which has me worried, since I have no access to it
> through FTP or LAN, I can't simply copy the entire content
> each day and burn a CD out of it or something.

It's easier to back up a complete Linux hard drive than a complete
Windows hard drive, and the Qube's hard drive IS a standard Linux hard
drive.  What you need is a real backup solution.  Sounds like you don't
want to buy one.  That's fine.  But that's NOT a reason to diss the
Qube.

> I really don't know if using a Win2000 box or clean BSD
> or Linux install for a server would be so bad, in comparison.
> For smaller networks at home, a Win2000Pro will do better
> in my opinion.

The Qube was NEVER marketed for home networks.

Enjoy your PCs.

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