Raq3i

[BigDawg]

Hi all -

I am getting conflicting info on these servers.. On one side I hear that they can handle traffic very well on the other I hear they suck. The only thing I have seen is that the admin software is very easy to understand. Please post any experiences with this machine... I have always used Sparc servers up until now, but exploring new optiions.

The Dawg

[Raq3iUser]

Yeah, I agree its very easy to use. But depending on the amount of traffic your going to get you might have some problems with it. I have to reboot it once a day cause it gets slow. Here are some of my server stats in telenet top.

Its is a Raq 3i with 512Mb of ram. And just rebooted it like 1 hour ago.

4:28am up 1:02, 1 user, load average: 8.40, 12.14, 10.57
251 processes: 250 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 50.0% user, 18.5% system, 0.0% nice, 31.4% idle
Mem: 517376K av, 514956K used, 2420K free, 299480K shrd, 10564K buff
Swap: 131536K av, 122072K used, 9464K free 65468K cached

[Coke]

Hmm 251 processes isn't that much. Rather keep the Sparcs.

[Raq3iUser]

12:28pm up 9:01, 1 user, load average: 5.05, 3.48, 2.68
282 processes: 279 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 44.4% user, 37.1% system, 0.0% nice, 18.3% idle
Mem: 517376K av, 484304K used, 33072K free, 509332K shrd, 12396K buff
Swap: 131536K av, 7960K used, 123576K free 221940K cached


Yeah, it kind of sucks. I am trying to figure out why it maxes out at around 278. Could it be set to max 278 per user? Cause I think it could do 555 Max Processes all together. I am trying to figure out how I can max the Processes to 555 per user.

Anyone know how to do this?

[Coke]

I don't think it's restricted to this number. It just isn't capable of handling more processes. You can increase your 'MaxClients' in the httpd.conf file (standard is 150) but I don't think it will be very useful to do that. It's already VERY busy with this number and an increase will make it crash for SURE.

[Simon]

Raq3s simply are not made for cj sites. simple as that. They are designed for e-commerce websites mainly. That is the reason you wouldn't see any large adult industry based company use any products of cobalt. In the other hand sun servers are:
1) rather expensive.
2) Hardware is very expensive
3) Not very simple to admin.
I would not suggest a sun server unless you have very large websites or plan to put 50+ sites on it.
I would suggest you go with a intel server with redhat 6.2 or freebsd. Easy to admin( you can write couple of shell scripts and your set as for the administration part). The hardware price is low comparing to sun servers. We have 25+ high performance intel servers which can handle over 1.5 million unique/day each fairly well with a decent amount of cgi runing on it. With tim's script ofcourse it is like you are not runing any cgi at all as it is the best script i've seen when it comes to using system resource.
I hope this helped you out.
Regards:
Simon N

[Coke]

Well the good thing then is Webmin runs on Solaris too and it's very easy to admin with that.
However I don't think shell-scripts can be written by more than 5% of the server owners http://adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/smile.gif so I'd recommend Webmin for the administration. It's free, it's secure and it's easy and it runs on nearly every Unix/Linux/BSD flavour.

[BigDawg]

I'll look into that Webmin...

I'm looking to pull at least one of my machines and put it in my ofc to learn how to use it myself - So I was looking into the easiest way to admin it without being a Unix whiz.

[Simon]

Then webmin is most likely your best option. Although I have witnessed it go corrupt many times. Hopefully that won't be the case with the sloris version of it =).
-simon