just wondering...

are intel celeron dedicated servers okay to get? if not, why?

i thought they were pretty good but can others offer their opinions? thanks!

No. Well, I mean they can work, but I think most people would decide against them if they had an option. Most likely, if you are getting a dedicated server to begin with, you are getting it because you have a fairly large site and need more performance, etc. So most people would go for a pIII or something rather than celeron.

Celerons aren't really server chips, but they CAN work, just may not be your best option is all.

We run servers with Celeron chips and they work quite well.

Pentium 3s have larger caches making them better for web serving. Celerons will work but they just cannot handle as much. If you run large databases, run large forums and the like, a Pentium class processor will be able to handle the load much easier :)

Has that cache size changed on the new Celerons that are based on the p4 architecture?

I don't know that much about them

Yes!

Originally posted by lightnin
Has that cache size changed on the new Celerons that are based on the p4 architecture?

I don't know that much about them

I think any CPU it's better than celeron
p3
p4
amd duron
amd athlon
amd xp

If you can find a host that pleases your needs...it another cpu you can have more room and better response times and page loading :) ( deepends what are you goin to use it for )

A Celeron is essentially PIII architecture running PII microcode. It's fine for light-duty hosting, no matter the purists say.

WebHozt, do you know the new cache size for the P4 based Celerons?

EDIT: nevermind, I'll look on their website :D

Yes, it is fine for light duty hosting, but isn't the reason for getting a dedicated server mainly because you need more speed/power/bandwidth? Sure you can save a couple bucks, but IMO if I was that tight for cash I would stick to a high end shared solution rather than buy/lease a box with something that I may outgrow and have to replace or upgrade anyway.

Not sure, but I remember reading both 256 and 512 KB.

Originally posted by JonL
WebHozt, do you know the new cache size for the P4 based Celerons?

EDIT: nevermind, I'll look on their website :D

The Celeron is quite under rated, in my opinion. Keep in mind that even the old Cobalt Raq4s with a 450 Mhz processor could easily pump out 10 to 20 Mbps. This has been proven over and over again in our DC.

The Celeron far outstrips the power of the old Cobalts plus it runs cooler and more stable than a Duron. Again, we have thousands of Celerons in our DC, many of which host hundreds of site. Several have been known to spew as much as 20 mbps to 30 mbps much to the dismay of the server owners.

We also have several dozen Celerons running on 10 Mbps unmetered lines. Just as we see with our P III 10 Mbps deals, and the limited P4 10 Mbps deals, we have a strong percentage of those customers to nearly constantly put out 10 Mbps.

For web hosting needs, the Celeron is more than equipped to handle better than 95% of the resellers out there and nearly all of the direct end users.

A single Celeron machine would not run this forum well, then again neither would a single PIII or P4 or Xeon.

There will undoubtadly be someone who will say, "Headsurfer is just biased because he pushes Celerons" or "how would he know?".

That's easy.... with over 9000 servers in our data center, including EV1 infrastructure and our shared servers, we are in a unique position unduplicated anywhere in the industry as we have thousands EACH of Cobalt Raqs (ok only 1500 of these), Durons, P IIIs, Celeron's, and P4s.

But, if you must have "Best" instead of just "Better", by all means spend a few $$ more and go with a P4. Even the dated Duron 1 GHZ rates a "good" for most web hosting needs.

Robert

Originally posted by JeremyV
Yes, it is fine for light duty hosting, but isn't the reason for getting a dedicated server mainly because you need more speed/power/bandwidth?

Not necessarily. One might need root access and full range of the box, maybe host a few clients at a minimal investment. There are many, many reasons.

Originally posted by hostingsp

p3
p4
amd duron
amd athlon
amd xp


I'm a novice.. would this be the order of quality or were they randomly listed? I've seen amd duron and athlon, but have no idea how good they are compared to a p4. Are they better?

here's a (debatable on some issues) list in order of quality from worst to best:

1) amd duron

2) p3

4) amd athlon (XP is an athlon)

5) p4

Some might switch the p3 and the athlon as far as reliability, because the p3 runs cooler. Other than that you most likely won't find many arguements.

Originally posted by alchiba


Not necessarily. One might need root access and full range of the box, maybe host a few clients at a minimal investment. There are many, many reasons.

I have the Celeron Machine from Fastservers and it is great. I only have a few domains on it mostly static with a bit of PHP Gallery driven stuff and the only reason I went dedicated was sheer speed, from FTP to HTTP. In a shared enviornment on a fairly full sever you are going to feel the peak traffic - where as on a lighter loaded maybe less powerful machine I have never noticied any lag (my experience).

edit: typo

Originally posted by SuzanneB


I'm a novice.. would this be the order of quality or were they randomly listed? I've seen amd duron and athlon, but have no idea how good they are compared to a p4. Are they better?

Sorry that was not on order...

in order :>

P4
XP
Athlon
p3
celeron

I din't post about duron beacuse i don't know the proc. that much;

P4 it's best for webservers... he handles webserver stuff better than and amd


Robert - HeadSurfer

A single xeon will not run this site ?
Is that serius ?
How much Transf. does this forum have just curius...

I'm using a box at RS with a celeron cpu and it's working great. The server load is always low even though I'm hosting a few high traffic sites and some smaller sites as well.

I'm very happy with my Celeron box so far and would gladly buy another one.

I haven't had a chance to compare my box with a RS P3 or P4 but I'm sure users can provide some feedback. In the end the Celeron can pump out lots of data just like Headsurfer mentioned.. and your Internet pipe is only so big to pump out that data.

You din't sayd how many sites..on that server...


And i'm sure a celeron can pump 10-30 MB it few users but how celeron deals it let's say 1.000 request per sec our 500 resquest ?


It depends on the need of the site..If you use database and stuff like that, that demand a high power cpu..

Robert - HeadSurfer

A single xeon will not run this site ?
Is that serius ?
How much Transf. does this forum have just curius...


Do a search, last I checked there were 2 servers running the forums.

Celeron work absolutely fine and the terms 'light' and 'heavy' hosting are really relative. A celeron works perfectly for us, on servers that we place old customers that we trust and we can discuss easily issues (like the scripts to use). Generally the theory of 'get a monster server and make him work hard' have never worked for us. We prefer smaller servers on which selectively place our customers, like a guided manual load balance. Of course the bigger cpu you have the better is, but not always necessary. Our experience with celerons is absolutely great till now.

Do a search, last I checked there were 2 servers running the forums.


Holy *** :)

headsurfer: I agree with you completely.

However, anything that was made by mistake can not be good unless it is named "Post-it Notes (TM)".

No really, from what I've seen and heard, Celerons are good. However, I would never put highly dynamic content, databases and the like on a Celeron. For those tasks, better leave it to the big boys.

I have been running celerons chips in one of my servers for 3 years now and never had any problems with them. I started with a celeron 400mhz 3 years ago and then upgraded to a celeron 900mhz a year ago. In that time I have had 2 fans and 1 hard disk go out but the celeron chip has never failed me. In fact when the server started overheating because of the fans going out I was very glad to have the celeron chips because the server shut down before the chip was damaged rather than chugging along and frying the chip like AMD's do.

Now if your going to give me a choice of a P4 over a celeron for the same price (like rackshack recently did) naturally I will take the P4:)

I think the Celeron gets a bad rap because it had no cache when it first came out.

We run servers with 1.7 ghz celerons and they work well for hosting.

Of course, if you have the $ a P4 or dual Xeon will make you even happier. :-)

--David