I'd like to tap into the collective brain here, if I may.
For many years we've had a philosophy of using small machines to perform specific roles, say web-server, email-filter, SMB box, that sort of thing. We even have some of the Single-core Athlon boxes with 512Mb memory we bought 10 years ago still running, and working fine.
However, of late, energy consumption has become a real issue. These things just consume too much electricity to justify keeping them running despite them have paid their way years ago, and still preforming faultlessly.
I've had a look at the local guys at http://www.linitx.com (Needham Market) but the choice is mind-boggling, and I haven't really kept up to speed with this stuff.
We already have a miniITX machine here as a firewall, but I might recycle it as a web server and use a Jetway JBC373 Fanless Quad Gigabit LAN Barebones System to replace it.
However, what I need very soon is a couple of low-power consumption systems with at least 2Gb of memory, preferably a multi-core CPU (but not essential), at least one LAN port, standard VGA and PS/2 ports, and capable of taking a standard SATA 2.5" or 3.5" drive. We use Gentoo and Ubuntu on our servers.
I'm thinking maybe the Jetway JNC9I-525 JC110 Barebone System but, recommendations anyone?
Cheers, Laurie.
On 19 Jun 2014, at 09:27, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:
I've had a look at the local guys at http://www.linitx.com (Needham Market) but the choice is mind-boggling, and I haven't really kept up to speed with this stuff.
I’ve been lusting after some low-power hardware for a while. Bewildering choices, aren’t there? The latest low-power options in that space are based on Intel’s Bay Trail system-on-chip, which has a whole range of CPUs.
They’re showing up in motherboards for self builds (e.g. Gigabyte J1800N-D2H /J1900N-D3V, see mini-itx.com), and small all-in-one devices like the latest Intel NUC, GigaByte Brix, and others, in various levels of capability, from home pcs to higher-grade server board options like ASrock-c2750d4i, Asus P9AIC25504L, Supermicro X10SBA and MBD-A1SAi-2750F-O.
Some point out that these boards seem to come at rather a premium, partly because of the “low power” appeal, but especially for the ones aimed at the NAS market with lots of SATA ports, and the server-grade machines that have remote management facilities built-in.
Also, if you’re considering using these machines for a virtualisation lab, you need to be be aware that many support VT-x but not VT-d, if that’s important for you.
Some point out that if your machine runs justly at idle, then an i5 will be quite low-power too, while still giving you the option of going to higher performance and vt-d when needed, and giving you the option of upgrading your CPU later.
And depending on your preference, you could consider going from your current "small machines to perform specific roles” strategy to running those as individual VMs on a single somewhat larger box, which might things like backup/rollback easier, and save server space.
You mentioned: - the JNC9I-525 JC110; that’s an older generation D525 chip, with one Realtek NIC, limited to 4G, for £125 with case. Does not support vt-x - the Jetway JBC373; that’s a D525 again, limited to 2G with 4 gig ports, for £150 with case. Does not support vt-x
By comparison: - the Gigabyte J1800N at mini-itx has a bay-trail chip, single port, goes up to 8G, for £50. Supports vt-x. The J1900N adds 2 further cores and a second gigabit ports, for £65. Sans case. Cheap, and nice. - The A1SAi-2550F has 8 cores, can go up to 32G RAM, has USB3 (nice for off-host backup), quad intel nic, IPMI, fanless £190 ex VAT. Powerful but a lot dearer. See review here http://www.servethehome.com/Server-detail/supermicro-a1sai-2750f-review/
Of course depending on what exactly you do with your router, you could also consider using a small dedicated router like the Mikrotik RB260GSP instead, or something with Wifi, and then you may not need so many ports on your linux machine, and you might be able to use a cheaper motherboard there.
From reading the odd forum post, some of these new motherboards do have some teething problems, so it’d be worth to look into your particular choice before purchasing, and make sure you get the latest BIOS.
Not sure if this helped or just confused you more :-) Good luck, have fun, and do report back!
— Martijn
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Martijn Koster wrote:
On 19 Jun 2014, at 09:27, Laurie Brown laurie@brownowl.com wrote:
I've had a look at the local guys at http://www.linitx.com (Needham Market) but the choice is mind-boggling, and I haven't really kept up to speed with this stuff.
I’ve been lusting after some low-power hardware for a while. Bewildering choices, aren’t there? The latest low-power options in that space are based on Intel’s Bay Trail system-on-chip, which has a whole range of CPUs.
They’re showing up in motherboards for self builds (e.g. Gigabyte J1800N-D2H /J1900N-D3V, see mini-itx.com), and small all-in-one devices like the latest Intel NUC, GigaByte Brix, and others, in various levels of capability, from home pcs to higher-grade server board options like ASrock-c2750d4i, Asus P9AIC25504L, Supermicro X10SBA and MBD-A1SAi-2750F-O.
Some point out that these boards seem to come at rather a premium, partly because of the “low power” appeal, but especially for the ones aimed at the NAS market with lots of SATA ports, and the server-grade machines that have remote management facilities built-in.
Do any of these 'low-power' systems actually quote total power consumption when integrated into a complete system?
I spent a long time finding a reasonably low power motherboard for my desktop system. With an efficient 80 watt power supply it runs at around 40 watts typically. Since my desktop is on all the time it was worth trying hard to keep the consumption down. It's a quad-core Intel I3 based motherboard by the way.
For comparison typical Intel Atom based systems of about the same vintage (e.g. my Acer Revo) consume around 26 watts for a *much* feebler system.
It's very, very difficult to get actual power consumption figures 'before you buy'. My figures above are actual, measured by me, power consumption figures. The meter I used seems pretty accurate on most loads until you get down below 5 watts or so.
On 19 Jun 2014, at 12:07, Chris Green cl@isbd.net wrote:
Do any of these 'low-power' systems actually quote total power consumption when integrated into a complete system?
Google finds some, but obviously the choice of other components influences that.
http://www.servethehome.com/intel-atom-c2550-power-consumption-comparison/ has some good figures: <10 at idle, 30-35 at load
For a lower-spec NUC http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-nuc-dn2820fykh-bay-trail-system-review_135... "NUC DN2820FYKH … kill-a-wat... 8-10 Watts of power to play 1080p video content."
http://www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-13-157-494 "Intel Celeron J1900 … 10 watts using pico-psu”
http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MFJNnq3 "Intel Celeron J1900 … 18 watts at idle and 25 watts during typical use, 30 at full load”
desktop system. With an efficient 80 watt power supply it runs at around 40 watts typically
Talking of power supplies, some of these take DC in to the board (e.g. Q1900DC-ITX), so you just add an external fanless brick. Keeps a lot of heat outside the case, and saves you having to buy a PSU. Then again, some cases come with a PSU. And a Pico-UPS is also an option.
For comparison typical Intel Atom based systems of about the same vintage (e.g. my Acer Revo) consume around 26 watts for a *much* feebler system.
That’s what’s appealing about this latest generation compared to the older atoms: much better performance and specs for the equivalent low power.
But I totally accept that you can approach low-power-at-idle with other systems too.
— Martijn
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 09:33:11AM +0100, Martijn Koster wrote: [snip]
http://www.servethehome.com/intel-atom-c2550-power-consumption-comparison/ has some good figures: <10 at idle, 30-35 at load
I have simply *never* seen any real system where the load varies this much from idle to working. Maybe I (nor anyone else probably) never actually work my systems such that they're running at much more than idle.
For example my desktop system idles at 40 watts and the most I can make it consume is around 44 watts. This is running Firefox, Digikam, the Gimp, whatever. Maybe it's only games on windows that really push things, or maybe displaying video.
-
Chris Green -
Laurie Brown -
Martijn Koster