Craig White wrote: >> I'm surprised how little discussion of what I would have thought >> was a common need - a low-power server - there seems to be. > ---- > I think that you are more or less unique in describing low power > consumption as a priority for a server. I wonder if that is true? Maybe the word "server" is used in two different senses. I'm thinking of a "home server" - one that links to the internet, and serves a few laptops on a small wifi or ethernet lan. This is on all the time, so power usage will mount up. I think the word server was used historically for a computer serving a large number of terminals or nowadays laptops, perhaps in a small business or university department. In this case, as you say, power usage will come way down in the order of priorities, after reliability and related issues. > Server grade components tend to be constructed for more rugged > continuous usage. While you can obviously succeed in obtaining low power > hardware, you will lose much in terms of redundancy, over engineering > for wider tolerances, higher internal temperatures, etc. As I said, we are thinking of different scenarios. I've been quite struck by the fact that my ancient PIII home server seems quite adequate for the task - running httpd, ssh, dovecot, collecting email, etc. It seems to me that a mini-ITX with one SATA laptop disk should be able to do the work without difficulty. I'm not sure if a fanless VIA EPIA system, or something similar, could contain a disk, though? Regarding RAID, I wonder if that is worth it for such a system, if one does nightly backups? I see that disks now are often guaranteed for 5 years, which must mean the half-life is something more than this. I would rank other possible disasters - fire, flood, etc, far higher than this - always as I said in a home setting. And it wouldn't be that difficult to change the disk if it failed.
