«

If I read this page:

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...enterprise_nz?
c=nz&l=en&s=bsd

On the left there is
"PowerEdgeTM SC430
Dual-Core Tower Server
Bullet Intel® Celeron® D Processor 326 (2.53GHz, 256KB L2 cache,
533MHz FSB)"

etc.

In the fine print of this page
http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...spx/pedge_sc43
0_nz?c=nz&l=en&s=bsd&~lt=popup&~tab=specstab

I find it is only dual core if the Intel Pentium D CPU is purchased.

Is there actually no Celeron dual core option or none of the other CPUs
offered with this model
i.e. it is only dual core if you purchase the right CPU option.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:54:09 +1300, Rob J <> wrote:

>If I read this page:
>
>http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...enterprise_nz?
>c=nz&l=en&s=bsd
>
>On the left there is
>"PowerEdgeTM SC430
>Dual-Core Tower Server
>Bullet Intel® Celeron® D Processor 326 (2.53GHz, 256KB L2 cache,
>533MHz FSB)"
>
>etc.
>
>In the fine print of this page
>http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...spx/pedge_sc43
>0_nz?c=nz&l=en&s=bsd&~lt=popup&~tab=specstab
>
>I find it is only dual core if the Intel Pentium D CPU is purchased.
>
>Is there actually no Celeron dual core option or none of the other CPUs
>offered with this model
>i.e. it is only dual core if you purchase the right CPU option.


How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
called a "server"?

>I find it is only dual core if the Intel Pentium D CPU is purchased.
>
>Is there actually no Celeron dual core option or none of the other CPUs
>offered with this model
>i.e. it is only dual core if you purchase the right CPU option.

Yeah the Celeron isn't dual core..

In article <>,
says...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:54:09 +1300, Rob J <> wrote:
>
> >If I read this page:
> >
> >http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...enterprise_nz?
> >c=nz&l=en&s=bsd
> >
> >On the left there is
> >"PowerEdgeTM SC430
> >Dual-Core Tower Server
> >Bullet Intel® Celeron® D Processor 326 (2.53GHz, 256KB L2 cache,
> >533MHz FSB)"
> >
> >etc.
> >
> >In the fine print of this page
> >http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...spx/pedge_sc43
> >0_nz?c=nz&l=en&s=bsd&~lt=popup&~tab=specstab
> >
> >I find it is only dual core if the Intel Pentium D CPU is purchased.
> >
> >Is there actually no Celeron dual core option or none of the other CPUs
> >offered with this model
> >i.e. it is only dual core if you purchase the right CPU option.
>
>
> How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
> called a "server"?

You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.

But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
hardware specs before it is called a server.

>> How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
>> called a "server"?
>
>You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.
>
>But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
>hardware specs before it is called a server.
>
Yeah thats what I was getting at . I can imagine (cheapass)
buisnesses buying this then wondering why it doesn't perform like a
higher-end *proper* server

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:05:44 +1300, Mark wrote:

>
>>> How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
>>> called a "server"?
>>
>>You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.
>>
>>But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
>>hardware specs before it is called a server.
>>
> Yeah thats what I was getting at . I can imagine (cheapass)
> buisnesses buying this then wondering why it doesn't perform like a
> higher-end *proper* server
It would perform perfectly satisfactorily as a server. Most of the grunt
in a desktop is aimed at the graphical display, which is not needed in a
display.

However, don't for one minute think I'm defending it - an appalling bit
of advertising - but I do have a number of 1.8GHz Celeron based servers
that perform their function perfectly well. Mind you, none have a single
hard disk.

Steve.

In article <>,
says...
>
> >> How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
> >> called a "server"?
> >
> >You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.
> >
> >But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
> >hardware specs before it is called a server.
> >
> Yeah thats what I was getting at . I can imagine (cheapass)
> buisnesses buying this then wondering why it doesn't perform like a
> higher-end *proper* server

On Linux it's more than enough.

In article <>,
d says...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:05:44 +1300, Mark wrote:
>
> >
> >>> How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
> >>> called a "server"?
> >>
> >>You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.
> >>
> >>But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
> >>hardware specs before it is called a server.
> >>
> > Yeah thats what I was getting at . I can imagine (cheapass)
> > buisnesses buying this then wondering why it doesn't perform like a
> > higher-end *proper* server
> It would perform perfectly satisfactorily as a server. Most of the grunt
> in a desktop is aimed at the graphical display, which is not needed in a
> display.
>
> However, don't for one minute think I'm defending it - an appalling bit
> of advertising - but I do have a number of 1.8GHz Celeron based servers
> that perform their function perfectly well. Mind you, none have a single
> hard disk.

This one has three, is that enough for you?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:47:55 +1300, Rob J wrote:

[snip]
>
>> However, don't for one minute think I'm defending it - an appalling bit
>> of advertising - but I do have a number of 1.8GHz Celeron based servers
>> that perform their function perfectly well. Mind you, none have a single
>> hard disk.
>
> This one has three, is that enough for you?
....as long as there's some redundancy (:

Mark wrote:
>>>How can a Celeron, with a single hard drive (ie no Raid mirror) be
>>>called a "server"?
>>
>>You can put in a second hard drive and do software RAID.
>>
>>But the point is that a server doesn't have to have a minimum of
>>hardware specs before it is called a server.
>>
>
> Yeah thats what I was getting at . I can imagine (cheapass)
> buisnesses buying this then wondering why it doesn't perform like a
> higher-end *proper* server
>
I've run some sites on 233MHz machines with less than 128MB. The Dell is
quite adequate for running smallish Web sites.

Cheers,

Cliff