this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
17 points (90.5% liked)

Selfhosted

40248 readers
1096 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
17
good replacement options power efficiency and affordable "large" storage? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

My current system is running on an old 2U HP rackmount server with dual 16-core AMD Opteron-6262HE CPU's and two RAID-5 arrays (fast SSD array and slow 2.5" HDD array). There are generally 5-6 VMs running under a Linux master at a given time but none of them are using a whole lot of CPU cycles.

In general, it's noisy but fairly effective for my needs.

I'm looking at the future and what might be good replacement that offers a blend of power-efficiency, flexibility, and storage cost.

In particular, I'd like to:

  • Ditch the 2.5" HDD array in favor of an efficient separate storage system, preferably an attached NAS with 3.5" disks on RAID5 but probably actually networked and not USB based (both for reliability and also so I can potentially provide storage directly to stuff running on separate SBC's etc). A storage system I could drop in now and still use after I upgrade the compute system would be great

  • I'd like to keep the SATA-SSD array for stuff that needs faster disk, or possibly move up to a RAID'ed M2/NVMe.

  • Move up to a more modern CPU that has a good Power-per-watt balance. 8-16 cores totally is probably good if that can be reasonably power efficient for idle cores etc, but dropping some VM's to run stuff on the aforementioned SBC's is also an option

  • Still be rack-mounted for the main system, but not so freaking loud, and actually fit in a standard 24" deep rack

  • Potentially be able to add a decent GPU or add-on board for processing AI models etc

Generally what it will be running is a bunch of VM's for stuff like NextCloud, remote-admin software, Media servers (Plex/Jellyfin), a Fileserver, some virtual desktops and various other fairly low-power VMs, BUT it'd be nice if I could add the dGPU or something with the horsepower for AI processing and periodic rendering/ripping/etc

I'm sorry debating on whether might make more sense to move all storage to BAD, then just replace the always-running stuff (NextCloud, Plex,Fileserver) with SBC's so that they're fairly easily swappable if something fails.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

You're asking for a lot of different things that don't align, so instead of trying to guess what you need, let me just throw a few things out there:

  • if you want transcoding that isn't constantly tied to GPU, you want an AMD chip of some sort. If you're trying to be efficient, an APU model.
  • you probably want to just merge all your data into a single disk array. Running multiple on one system is pointless and inefficient.
  • separate your CPU needs from storage. Like you said, maybe you just need an ultra low power NAS, and then different machine to handle compute.
  • skip SSD for any network storage. Yes it's more power efficient, but if you're talking bulk storage, you're wasting resources for smaller volumes where it won't matter if transferred over the network. SSD is good for local-only for the most part.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Good points.

Also, SSD isn't always necessarily more power efficient than spinning disks. It depends on the specific disks, and the use-case.

I've seen a table posted on Lemmy with data on different drive power consumption for idle, Read, and write. Sometimes SSD consumed more power.

load more comments (1 replies)