This really irks me. We're calling a machine with a Celeron CPU a "server" now? And being expandable is now "hackable?"
There's a long, rich history of low-power chips being used in home servers. It makes a lot of sense because for that type of application you want low power draw and low noise. Both of these are different requirements to the datacenter-based servers you seem more familiar with but nevertheless it is an entirely valid type of server.
For example, here[1] is an article about HP's use of Atom chips in their home media server.
I had one of their AMD Turion based MicroServers a few years later, which was significantly more powerful than an Atom but much less powerful than this Celeron. It still works fine as a backup/NAS server.
[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/528926/article-6705.html
[2] https://www.reboot-it.com.au/p/Networking/Servers/HP-ProLian...
I 100% agree with you. I'm not here saying "it's not a server unless it has more than 30 cores rabble rabble rabble." There's a spectrum of server hardware available ranging from stick-it-in-a-closet micro server to full fledge DC grade rack server.
An Atom (C series) is a server (albeit a microserver). I have no issue with this at all. Xeon D chipsets go all the way down to 2 cores, I still recognize it as a (micro)server. Both CPU families are labelled as servers by Intel (that's not to say Intel has the final say in what a server is or is not.)
Celerons lack the feature sets to be called a server from a pure hardware perspective.
The requirements for this are price and power efficiency, not any of the features that Intel likes to class as "server CPUs" (eg the remote management features). The only downside is the lack of ECC memory, but some Celerons support that, eg[1]. It's true this one doesn't but that seems the only downside.
[1] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/search/featurefi...
What's wrong with that? A server can have any kind of CPU.
Functioning as a server is a use case. Labelling the desktop / embedded grade hardware as server grade is false marketing in my my opinion. Celeron is a desktop or embedded grade CPU (as per Intel's own classification).
>A server can have any kind of CPU.
You can use any kind of CPU to "serve." From a hardware point of view, there are categories of CPUs that are classified as server grade with specific feature sets. Intel Atom (C series) and Xeon are server grade (again per Intel's classification). The lines between Intel's server and desktop grade CPUs used to be very clear, however they are blurring over time. For example, new Core series CPUs support ECC memory which used to be a server specific feature however they still lack RAS features.
Xeons have support much more memory, have higher core counts, have ECC and RAS, support multi sockets, etc.
From a software point of view, you are correct. You can use any machine you want for that use case.
It's one thing to say - "You can use this computer as a server / to serve content." It's something different to say "this is computer is a single board server" when it actually isn't.
I know I'm being pedantic but I work in Product for a server manufacturer. I'll stop now.
One could also argue this isn't a server because it isn't serving anything, it's just a powered down computer in a cardboard box in a warehouse, waiting for you to order it and tell it what to do, like any other computer (maybe you want it to serve stuff, maybe not).
The expected usage here is: This device goes under the desk / into some closet, runs headless, runs 24/7 and provides some services on the network. It's a server. That's how people use this word these days, RPi is a server device too. (See /r/selfhosted)
> The expected usage here is: This device goes under the desk / into some closet, runs headless, runs 24/7 and provides some services on the network.
The same is true of many configurations of home computers, yet the hardware isn't called* "server" hardware, and they aren't called* "servers" either, unless they're actually serving something. When you buy it at the store, it's just called a computer.
*: 'not called' as in, most people don't call it that, so descriptivist, and they shouldn't, so prescriptivist, too