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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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