Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Version 1.x :

Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ?

Quote Reply
Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ?
Hi to all Links-SQL-Users,

it seems that Links SQL will better running if using my own dedicated server (there are problems with "time-out"-building and re-indexing on servers by pair.com)...

Has anyone experiences or suggestions with running LinksSQL on servers like Cobalt RAQ3 (Real RAQ3 Pro with 256 DRam or more) ? Or which another server do you prefer ?

Tell me Your opinion or experiences - thanks!

DMK Internet-Services
M.Lutz




Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
There was a discussion of this before. I don't believe mod_perl (or some other part) will run on the RAQ3 due to their management features. You'll have to ask specifically, or do a search here and in the Questions area for "RAQ"

I had thought about the RAQ servers, but they were too limited for my needs, though they make good basic servers for standard type sites.

I think you'd be better off with a standard Unix server with full OS access, and no proprietary features. The modularity of the RAQ and the ease of ISP configuration and installation is a trade off on higher-end features that 90% of the web isn't using, but which programs and sites like Links SQL does.

http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
Hi pugdog,

what kind of server do YOU use ? Tell me sth. more special about Your hardware, provider and connection...

I am looking for a GOOD and FAIR provider, who is able to offer a dedicated server for the needs of LinksSQL. Does someone has offers or connections ?

Regards,

DMK-Internet
Marcus

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
I'm running Solaris on a Sparc 10. I colocated a dedicated server, so it really fits outside the normal plans. I pay a flat rate for bandwidth only.

I personally would _not_ go to Intel platforms for even to Linux with the success I've had with Solaris/Sparc and the way the OS and hardware can be easily clustered.

I'm working on a hosting solution for Links SQL sites, and will have some shared and dedicated plans available. My ISP just bought a huge data center from one of the health care providers that got into trouble (they gave an astronomical price of what it would cost to build that data center today), so there is now fairly unlimited expansion space and they have some pretty impressive hardware available.



http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
Hi to all Users,

just a short note:

I know some users are hosted by pair.com with Links and LinksSQL. There was also a discussion with good providers in that forum, including comments about pair.com.

I have problems from time to time since their movement to the new datacenter, because they have limited the resource usage - original mail by pair.com support...:

"...Looking a little closer at the script you are running (thank you
for giving us a closer look at it with the login and password), I notice a
couple of things. What It comes down to, however is that the script
nph-build.cgi is using *far* too much memory. 5MB (Which is 2MB over what
is allowed as per http://support.pair.com/policy/resourcecgi.html). I
would personally reccomend cutting back on the resource usage of the
script...."

I'm hosting the script Links and LinksSQL now for 2 years and I was very happy before with their service, but I think now it's time to move to a dedicated server...

DMK
Marcus



Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
Moving to a dedicated server is the ultimate end of any Links SQL installation.

A shared server is great for serving personal web pages, a guestbook script, or even a small business site with nothing more than a plug in shopping cart.

Once you are running a major application, and require continual cgi access for performance (search.cgi, jump.cgi, etc) you start to use the resources that are "shared" among all the users -- CPU and RAM.

Some shared hosts have enough horse power to let the program run for awhile, but as they start to fill up the servers with other hosts, all the "power" you thought you had is now allocated to other users.

Dedicated boxes are the only way to go in the end.

Dedicated server prices vary widely, but they have to take into account the full cost of the machine, the connections, resources and overhead of the ISP. This is why shared servers are so attractive. You are splitting the cost of a single machine over many people -- but that means you only get a slice of it for your needs.

Dedicated servers fall into two groups. Leased and colocated. With co-location you are paying only for floorspace and the connection. With leased, you are also paying for the server (usually provided by the ISP). Which is better for you is up to you. If you trust your ISP, you can often save with co-location equipment (but you have to feel comfortable that if you want your server back you can get it).

For an idea of what the prices/costs of servers are, check SUN's site, Dell, Compaq and HP. See the cost of the hardware. Realize the ISP's probably get a small discount off the retail prices, but it's not any more than a regular retail shop. If the hardware you want prices out to $3700, that's the cost you have to build into the server's monthly 'lease'. Don't price for 36 months, only 18 to 24. Remember, the machine will be on 24 hours a day, and parts like the disk drives will be taking major activity hits.

Then, once you figure the server cost, you need to figure the bandwidth cost. This is more tricky, but the more you pay (up to a point) the more you are guaranteed to have available when you want it. 1 mbps sustained with 10 mbps burstable is a good starting point. "200 GB/month" is a much less attractive concept, since when is that transfer available?? During the "prime" selling hours, or only between 2am and 6am Eastern time??

Pricing on bandwidth varies greatly, it reflects regional cost differences as well as ISP hardware configuration differences. But, included in the "bandwidth" costs are all the other overheads -- switches, routers, DNS services, support services, electricity, A/C, UPS, back ups, 24-hour NOS & monitoring, service contracts, etc.

Figure about $1,000/month for the 1mbsp/10mbps type of pipe, +/-20% depending.

Once you stray from those numbers, you start taking risks. Some ISP's may have temporarily got extra bandwidth. They can sell it cheap, or _appear_ to provide it to you while it exists. Once they sign up more customers, that bandwidth you were accessing "disappears" and the ISP refers you back to your "200GB/month" contract with no mention of sustained or burstable bandwidth.

Anyway..... Good luck :)




http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
Not to dredge up anything old, but I just found out that pair.com/pair.net is a Pittsburgh based company, that is privately held, and grows from internal funds and cash flow, not from investors etc.

It started out as a single T1 type business, and now has a full datacenter, etc. but it's still a privately held business, the definition of a small business.

That explains a lot of things about them.

While they are obviously growing, and expanding, they most likely have "crunch" periods where they don't have the capital, but have the need to expand bandwidth, hardware, or other stuff. This would explain why some people have been happy with them at times, and others have had problems.

In short, I do not think I would want to put a business site on this type of company, but a personal or hobby site if the prices are right is probably ok. From experience, I want a well funded, actively growing (to a point) company that has excesses of hardware, money, bandwidth, services, etc and grows BEFORE they need to.

This news blurb caught my attention because pair.com has been discussed often, they turned out to be Pittsburgh company, and their growth pattern suddenly made sense.

I'm still working on the higher-end hosting plan for Links SQL, and it will probably be available in place when the next version comes out. That might also be a good time to consider upgrading if you need to. Set up the new version on new servers, then migrate your data over, and change DNS. For those of you considering it, this is an option tailored to Links SQL and GT programs.

http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
I am currently running Links-Sql on a Raq2 128mb. It runs without problems but is slow on some functions (build index). Cobalt has binaries for Mysql and DBI/DBD. The main problem with the raq servers is the cobalt proprietary mods which limit your ability to update. The linux kernel is modified redhat and apache is also modified. Apache is currently at 1.3.3 and there is no update available for the raq. The raq often has other pieces that are not current.
I found cgi.pm was 3 years out of date. Also MOD_PERL is not available for the Raq and attempting to install from src causes problems and voids the warranty.
The most current perl binary for raq is 5.00404.
Also the raq has some weird quirks about environment variables it returns and file concatenations for cgi.
If you get a raq you will find it also has an unusual (non-standard) directory structure so some common configuration files are hard to find.

Quote Reply
Re: Better Links SQL on Cobalt RAQ 3 ? In reply to
Hi there,

Have you look ed into the newly released RAQ4, you can lease one for 99 a month in the UK with no settup fee.



Regards

MDJ1
http://www.isee-multimedia.co.uk