I'm about to get a dedicated server and I'm quite puzzled:

One that sounds really good for price/features-transfer-space is based on a Celeron 600 and has a 20Gig HD...

I searched for topics on this but couldn't find much. Is there a BIIIG difference between scsi and single ide and between a PIII and Celeron (I know there is, but is it really noticable and in wich ways?)

How many domains/websites would you say I can safely host on it some of them using PHP - mySql and CGI.

Any info will be greatly appreciated.

Rick

Celeron based servers are fine for most things.... what matters the most is how much ram the server has...

Comes with 128MB and you can always upgrade that! :)

Now that I think of it... How would this server compare with a Cobalt raq4?

Its going to be quite a bit faster than a raq, a raq runs on a amd processor, slow slow slow

How many domains/websites would you say I can safely host on it some of them using PHP - mySql and CGI.

It is depends on how much bandwidth, MySQL ..etc each domain are using.

For 128MB RAMs i think 10-20 website with low bandwidth will still be fine.

:)

I think you'll be fine with the celery,

I had a celery 366 with 128 MB of ram which had about 80 small sites on it (low bandwidth sites). And the load was very, very low. The number of sites depends on how busy each site is. A dual P3 900 with 1 GIG of ram might not be enough for one really busy site. It's all relative.

RAM is the big deciding factor. If it starts to slow down, get RAM.

Originally posted by cbaker17
a raq runs on a amd processor, slow slow slow

AMD Slow?

I run my LAN workstations with AMD 850 Mhz CPUs and they fly!!! :)

he should have said that the amd k6-2 (old generation of processors) is slow.

Originally posted by ksstudio


It is depends on how much bandwidth, MySQL ..etc each domain are using.

For 128MB RAMs i think 10-20 website with low bandwidth will still be fine.

:)

Now this celeron 600 should be much better than a raq4 (as posted here). Cobalt providers claim you can host as many as 200 websites on those... Now sure they might be pushing sales but between "10-20 website with low bandwidth" and "as many as 200 sites" there's quite a difference!

I'm getting confused.

You can definitely host more than 10-20 websites with that server. Unless of course those websites are all very popular bulletin boards running UBB :)

Generally speaking, in relation to the Intel lines (I'm not including P4s because they suck), AMDs are worse for web hosting. AMDs are by far better in the gaming arena and high powered graphics and things like that, but server/hosting wise, Intel is definately the way to go.

Originally posted by sciallo


Now this celeron 600 should be much better than a raq4 (as posted here). Cobalt providers claim you can host as many as 200 websites on those... Now sure they might be pushing sales but between "10-20 website with low bandwidth" and "as many as 200 sites" there's quite a difference!

I'm getting confused.


If most of the site (180 out of 200) are sleeping site I am sure there will be no problems. Imagine if you host 50 site on that celeron server and some of them running MySQL(maybe just 5). And Each site have a visitor at the same time, what will happen?

....thats too bad, you server gonna down:bawling:

Originally posted by SaluHost
Generally speaking, in relation to the Intel lines (I'm not including P4s because they suck), AMDs are worse for web hosting. AMDs are by far better in the gaming arena and high powered graphics and things like that, but server/hosting wise, Intel is definately the way to go.

Hmm, not according to all of our lab-testing and real-world use. More than half of our new servers these days are Athlons, in fact. Have you done some testing you can share with the group?

The Athlon architecture has far better memory bandwidth, especially with the new DDR RAM systems coming out.

Kevin Martin
http://www.pair.com/

I don't have any testing results, it's just always been accepted that way by most people. Yes the DDR will surely help out, so we'll see. It's just always been accepted that AMD chips weren't as good as Intel chips for hosting and pretty much all servers, so use what you want (however if you are going to be having a lot of sites and visitors, don't use budget CPUs like Celeron or Duron, but if you do choose one of those two I'd definately go with a Duron).

Older generation K6-II and K6-III processors weren't too hot in games, mainly due to a poor FPU unit.

The processors themselves are good. Clock for clock, running normal everyday applications like Word, Excel, Internet Explorer and the like, they were comparable to a P-II of the same speed. The K6-III was generally comparable to a P-II of around 100mhz higher in business apps.

For a web server, where memory tends to be a deciding factor, K6-x's are never going to be world beaters. Athlons and Durons should be good though, their whole processor design is very well designed. Their best area is gaming and 3d rendering, but they have a much larger L1 cache than the Celeron and PIII. The newer celerons(533a and anything abover a 566) are exactly the same as a PIII, apart from having half the cache disabled. This makes little difference in everyday use, but in gaming the Celeron would run at a speed comparable to a PIII at 200mhz less than the Celeron.

If I had a choice between a PIII 600 or a celeron 900, the Celeron would be the better choice IMHO. Most of the time, it would perform around the level of the PIII. If it was using MySQL heavily, then the extra cache of the PIII would probably be beneficial.

I've rambled completely off subject. I'll leave you guys to it :).

Rich

Originally posted by sigma
The Athlon architecture has far better memory bandwidth, especially with the new DDR RAM systems coming out.

Kevin Martin

I'm particlulaly interested in an AMD Thunderbird or Duron for a 1U case. Have you been succesful with these? Is PC133 ram good enough or do you go with the DDR?

Thanks!