Comments on: Looking for power-efficient barebones servers

By: SteveStreeting.com » Blog Archive » Bacula is nice

SteveStreeting.com » Blog Archive » Bacula is nice — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:30:48 +0000

[...] I’ve talked about recently, as a background task, I’m setting up a new Ubuntu server to take over the main file server, [...]

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:02:29 +0000

@DarkSylinc: The machine has survived overnight so I think it was the PSU. It’s on a proper UPS (surge protection up to full lightning strike – I’ve learned from previous experience) so any issues are likely to be wear and tear. Academic now, since I know I need to get replacing.

@Slan: Thanks, looks similar to the QNAP offerings. These kinds of things are good, but because the OS is in firmware and they’re often using custom chips, they’re a bit awkward to install new things on and you typically have to use odd package sources and jump through hoops to make changes ‘permanent’, since at runtime the system directories are typically on a ramdisk. Great for appliance use (my QNAP is great at that), but not so much when you need a bit more flexibility.

@Steven: I use:
Backup: currently custom incremental dump/tar scripts, planning on moving to Bacula or Amanda next time
Sync: rsync locally or for public repositories (e.g. I keep a local rsync of the Ogre SVN repo), s3sync remotely with Amazon S3 (custom scripts to tar/encrypt/upload)
Encryption: OpenSSH for connections, GPG for files

By: Steven 'lazalong' Gay

Steven 'lazalong' Gay — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:24:54 +0000

I am considering making such a server.

Can you tell me or point me to the softs you use? (backup, sync, encryption, etc)

Thanks

By: Slan

Slan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:26:12 +0000

I have a RAID5 Synology CS-407 at work (ARM based). It might be a bit outdated by now but is quite nice for a 24/7 server in a mixed Linux / Windows domain. It is said to run debian (not tested since it’s production for ~35 people) but a simple patch allows to run ipkg to install basic services like backup svnserve for archived repositories.

http://www.synology.com/enu/products/CS407/index.php

By: Dark Sylinc

Dark Sylinc — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:12:09 +0000

I’m also not in the Server HW stuff, but all I can say is:

a) When the PSU fails, check the motherboard caps. They might have been inflated. Also check the MB’s battery is still working.

b) Relatively newer AMDs have Cool ‘n Quiet. I guess an Athlon 1ghz wouldn’t have it. But anyway you can try lowering the FSB and the clock multitplier to save power if you don’t stress the CPU much.

By: kinjalkishor

kinjalkishor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:59:07 +0000

Yes you just build a power-efficient machine instead. I was continously thinking of it while reading your post. The real benefit is the complete control you will get. And you already know enough about hardware. That way seems far better. Simply put if I were you, I will have building my own cheap machine as no.1 option. but then you are far more experienced then me in maintaining a buisness server. Though this option still looks good due to amount of control.

By: kinjalkishor

kinjalkishor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:47:19 +0000

Though I really marvel at on how low hardware Linux does everything, whereas Vista performs so low on Very high hardware even if doing nothing. Tells why Linux is so famous on servers.

By: kinjalkishor

kinjalkishor — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:44:47 +0000

Yes, the age of Cloud has not come, Dont come between nazgul and cloud.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:11:59 +0000

Thanks, but not really an option; I have sensitive information on this server (NDA covered material etc) so remote hosting is not an option. My remote backups are encrypted for this reason, and while I could perhaps maintain an encrypted filesystem and only ever work via SSH, it’s still got the major problem that if my internet connection is down, I have no business data. And, not having the server physically visible on the public internet simplifies the security situation. And, my internet speed is just not good enough to save large files on a remote server without frustration.

I might host entirely in the cloud one day, but this is not that day – things are not quite mature enough for that yet.

By: Nico

Nico — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:55:13 +0000

I can’t really give you any advice on server hardware, but have you already considered the option of renting a Virtual Private Server? A VPS allows you to get a fully functional server specifically tailored to your needs, at much more affordable costs than renting an actual physical server machine.

The same problem you described kept me busy too a couple of months ago. Not only was I still running my Ubuntu server on a Pentium II, but I was also moving to an apartment with a shared internet connection, meaning I wouldn’t have any control over port forwarding. Getting a VPS was clearly the best answer in my case, and for only 13 euro a month I now have a server that’s equal or better to what I had, without the burden of having to maintain any hardware.