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

Cobalt Servers vs. Linux

Quote Reply
Cobalt Servers vs. Linux
We're looking at moving to a dedicated server. We had originally decided on a Linux box, one that we woul dbe totally responsible for (installation, configuration, etc.).

However, we don't have this expertise in-house and are hoping for a more managed option (web interface for aliases, etc.). Yet, we don't want to los the ability to telnet for various reasons.

So, we have two choices: Linux box with telnet but no simple interface with which we are used to from VServers. We will hve to learn how to create accounts, assign IPs, create aliases, MX stuff, create FTP accounts, and more.

If we go with Cobalt, we'll get an admin interface WITH telnet.

What would everyone suggest? Is Cobalt compaitble with all the software out there, especially Links SQL? How difficult is it to do what we do (aliases, virtmaps, ftp accounts, domain setup) in Linux, via telnet?

Any opinions are more than welcome.

Quote Reply
Re: Cobalt Servers vs. Linux In reply to
I just recently went through the same predicament. I had a Cobalt RaQ2 Server and the Gossamer people were trying to install LinksSQL. After a couple of weeks of crashing the server (memory leak), I gave up and purchased a Compaq server and installed Redhat Linux. Definitely not as easy as the Cobalt!, but I may be limping through it. It you have any questions, you can contact me.


Quote Reply
Re: Cobalt Servers vs. Linux In reply to
i had links setup on cobalt, it took about two days to correctly make it work. overall it really shouldn't be a problem. if you search for raq2 here you will find out that nph-build and all the nph files need to be edited for it to work. if you can get a 30 day demo before you make the purchase and test out links on it that would be the best choice.

Quote Reply
Re: Cobalt Servers vs. Linux In reply to
We thought about the thing,too.
At the moment there is a special price for new sellers (dont be stupid and buy as customer :-)
but if i compare prices for a normal machine with them for a cobalt there is no choice for me:

i have bought these days:

P3 650; Hardware-Raid; two HDs and Hotfix (3. HD) (all with 18,4Gig); 19''Rack, Network and 256Megs RAM for about
2500$ (all things from known companies: 3com, Seagate, asus usw.) and the server is ready not in parts and i got 3 years garantee (they come to the server and change defect parts!). If you buy this as customer you must pay 10% more plus taxes.

For the same money i could buy a 300 MHZ AMD, 1 IDE - 10Gigs, 64 Megs RAM and the Cobalt-SYSTEM;
but you find everywhere a guy installing Linux and Webmin for some dollars ...

So my choice for the last and the next system is clear; setup Links on linux makes ten minutes after a standard-installation.


Quote Reply
Re: Cobalt Servers vs. Linux In reply to
I would also vote for not using the Cobalt systems. they are great for "stock" websites, really.

I would get the server, and if you need to, pay someone to set it up to install PERL, Apache, MySQL, Webmin, MySQLMan, Qmail, and even a separate version of Apache/PHP so that you can start that server and run PHP programs if you need to. (Apache has no problem running multiple copies of itself as long as it has a different IP or port.)

Once it's running, you can add aliases through Webmin, mail through Qmail or Webmin, and do most server adminstration through the Webmin modules -- even shutdown/reboot, re-ip, etc.

Linux seems to be the way to go now adays, but if you are considering networking a system of servers, eventually, you might want to consider Solaris. It has a few drawbacks, but it also has some advantages -- one vendor "official" releases, pre-compiled binaries exist for it for almost every program, it is rock-solid, most ISP's run Solaris on their "house" servers, it makes networking and load balancing servers easy, etc.

I'm one of the few here who admits to running on Solaris <G>

But, in any case, get a machine with a fast CPU, 2x as much RAM as you think you were going to get, and at _LEAST_ two SCSI harddrives -- two SCSI controllers if you can spring for it. Put the OS & Logs on one disk, and the Webserver/database on the other.

This is based on your initial consideration of a Cobalt box, which indicates the size/traffic you were planning. If you are considering leasing a server for the long-term (2-3 years, and a steady growth in traffic) you might want to consider a slightly different configuration, but hardware is relatively cheap, and if you are leasing through your ISP most will "up-lease" for you without a problem.

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