I am in the process of moving my site to a dedicated server. I am unsure however of what kind of configuration I choose opt for.

I more or less ruled out the Cobalt servers. From what I read elsewhere in this forum, it seems that they lack flexibility.

Most companies offer Red Hat Linux servers but others seem to prefer FreeBSD. Virtualis for instance does not seem to support Linux. What are the pros and cons of each OS?

Some entry levels Solaris servers are only slightly more expensive than Linux based servers. Is there any reason to choose a Solaris server rather than the other two?

I am also wondering what is a decent RAM configuration? How does the RAM affect the overall performance of the server? What are the most RAM intensive applications?

I use Links SQL but my site has an e-commerce component as well which is currently completely outsourced. We would like to host it on our own server ASAP.

Any advice is welcome. Thanks for your help.

Jean--

Ok..

First..... CHOOSE AN ISP!!

Then, go with their configuration and choice of OS. There is virtually no difference between the servers for routine serving.

I had run FreeBSD servers for years, because that is what my ISP's had, and when I moved to my current (and hopefully -- and even looks like it -- last) ISP, they are a Solaris shop, so I decided to go with that.

The advantages of Linux is that it's an open system. Red Hat has over all the best access, longest track record, and arguably the largest user base of "hackers", for being on the "net". You'll probably find more help, support, access, packages, and stuff for Red Hat than the others.

Does that make it better? There are shelf fulls of Linux books that discuss the various differences where applicable.

FreeBSD is a good, stable system. Yahoo uses (or used to). I never had a problem with it. It's a solid, stable, full featured Unix. There is pretty much ONE book on it, and one distribution source. But, that's what gave it it's penetration pre-Linux days <G>

I'm happy with my ISP, and after learning the quirks in Solaris, I don't think I would go with any other OS. Up until Linus, Solaris had arguably (and probably correctly) the most stable, accepted, and widely used Unix Platfrom for non-academic use. Linux, as an open-source product, will probably eventually surpass most of the Unix varieties for general use. But, because of the Solaris history, and the tight integration of it with SUN servers, you'll find most major programs compile flawlessly on Solaris/Sparc platforms, and often pre-compiled binaries exist from the begining.

So, first pick an ISP you think can handle your needs. Get a hardware configuration that will meet your anticipated needs for at least 6 months before you have to upgrade. If upgrades are costly, you might be better off to predict 1 year ahead.

Then, whatever OS (except NT) the ISP uses, go with. Don't buck their shop. You'll get more support and less hastle to go with FreeBSD on an ISP that uses it, and they may not be able to help at all with Solaris. A shop that prefers Solaris might be biased to the "upstart" unix packages, and not be forth coming with help for a problem and just want to blame your choice of OS.

The OS is the _LEAST_ important factor. ALL UNIX WORKS!!!

Your ISP is the #1 factor. Your hardware is #2. Then, pick the OS your ISP supports best, or recommends for your particular setup.





[This message has been edited by pugdog (edited April 28, 2000).]

Let me add a bit here -- Linux is not Unix.

What!!!

Linux is a Unix CLONE, rewritten from the ground up to incorporate the best features of the 2 main development groups of Unix. It contains _NO_ Unix code (Original Bell Labs/ATT code).

FreeBSD is Unix.

Red Hat is Linux.

Linux is doing more of what Unix does, and more - Period.

Unix is Unix, and probably will eventually lose out to Linux, while Unix strains -- such as Solaris -- continue, and become more like Linux.

Solaris and IBM OS's are so deeply entrenched in some businesses and fields, they will continue, and just grow/evolve to meet the Linux driving forces. They will no longer drive the industry, but follow the Linux lead.

If you are starting up fresh, as an ISP, you would probably want to host your main systems on Solaris (due to the large volume of support available, and the fact you will probably be running at least a few SUN computers) but put your customers hosting on Linux (Red Hat or other) since that is what the customer will want. I don't think it makes sense at this point to go with an OS such as FreeBSD unless you are already using it -- if you are, stick with it (for now).

Make sense??

pugdog:

thanks for your very detailed reply. I am always impressed by your postings.

Yet, now I am bit confused after you last posting regarding FreeBSD because I was about to opt for a FreeBSD plan.

To be more specific, I made a comparison between five hosting companies:
-Digital National: they are part of Verio which is the company hosting my site today.
-Concentric: they have a good reputation and a broad range of services
-UUNET: they have a good reputation as an ISP.
-Virtualis: I heard and read several extremely positive comments about them.
-Rackspace: same.

And the results are:
-UUNET: very limited offer, pricing poorly documented, not an option.
-Concentric seems to be twice the price of the market. For instance they charge the SSL option $100/mo.
-Digital nation has a low entry Solaris plan at $450/mo which is attractive. They also have a large range of options. But the services included in the plans are pretty basic and it adds-up very quickly with the options.
-Rackspace probably has the most modular offer. They seem to include some software like soft cart for free or a small fee in the plans
-Virtualis tech support has an outstanding record of happy customers. Their plans are not cheapest but they include a lot of features that are listed as options elsewhere. For instance, the backup or store managemenet software are a standard feature.

So, it seemed to me that their packages are among the most competitive products on the market but they only work with FreeBSD...

If you think I may have missed other hosting company worth considering, let me know.

Jean--



[This message has been edited by sstreams (edited May 01, 2000).]

In trying to clear up things, I might have muddied the water.

1) If you were a _new_ ISP (just setting up) -- I'd suggest going with solaris and Linux.

2) If you are already in operation, you are probably using solaris on at least a few of your machines, and _probably_ FreeBSD on the customer machines. You are probably feeling the pressure to add Linux to your offerings, since that is what people want, because it's 'hot'.

In your case, as a customer looking for FEATURES, remember, I said pick your ISP, then your hardware, then go with the operating system the ISP is most comfortable with. ALL UNIX WORKS!!

The only consideration you need to deal with is that FreeBSD is _NOT_ Linux. It is a free version of BSD Unix. If you were planning on running "linux" programs, they won't run. If you were planning on running Unix/perl programs -- like Links, like 99.9% of perl scripts out there, they will run.

If you are going to run FreeBSD, get yourself the Walnut Creek Free BSD CD ROM book. It's available at most chain bookstores (they usually have one copy in stock). Or you can order from them.

My ISP doesn't have any prices on-line, unfortunately, and they are more in the "custom" package mode. Which is why group buying power has such an advantage.

Hosting is the #1 problem most people seem to be facing when they move from a hobby to a business type (or busy) site. If I could get 5 or 6 people who wanted an annual hosting package at $450/month, I could probably set it up on a powerful shared Solaris server in a couple of weeks, with the same resources as the plans you mention.

Most ISP's have to have a 'standard' package to advertise. In analyzing only the Links SQL needs for hosting, resources can be allocated more specifically. CPU is the most precious resource, because of all the scripts. Disc space and bandwidth are only important so long as they are available. (Unlike an image site, where CPU is not as important as extreme amounts of bandwidth.)

If I could get 10 people committed, I could probably set up a separate database server, with a front end server (or two) for the HTTP requests. There's a lot of overhead in this, but it's a _real_ business solution that you could grow into, by adding your own servers for very little additional cost as time goes on.

This is most likely "over kill" on the servers, but it also means you'll never see performance problems due to load or bandwidth.

SStreams,

I am moving my site over to Virtualis. The IP etc is setup on the Deda 2 already... Which is a good server. Just thought you would want to know if you are still deciding on the host to go with as Virtualis is one of the sites above.

And heres a tip that'll save you $70 a month off the package...

http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mbray/vrp.html - you get 25% of Virtual Servers and 20% of Deda servers.

Heres a non referal link for those that see this a spam :P

http://www.virtualis.com/vrp.html

Back to the point of the OS... FreeBSD is the one that there tech's most support. You can get RedHat Linux as well - and NT (Apparently there tech support isn't to flash with NT).

I find that FreeBSD is good. I wouldn't change my choice of ISP due to the fact that they run a different OS, as FreeBSD will still be around in years to come.

------------------
Michael Bray
Review your webhost or find a new one.
www.webhostarea.com
Links SQL User
------------------

From personal experience, I can say that rackspace is probably the best out of your selections. I've used digitalnation as well and both companies are very good, but rackspace offers the best support anywhere because you can talk to a support person 24/7 on the phone.

They are also the largest redhat hosting center.