[nylug-talk] Slim home server for samba and subversion ( and possibly IMAP)

[Chris Knadle]

On Friday 09 May 2008, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I hadn't even been aware about the USB + FireWire timeout issues
> > until you mentioned those here.  Ugh.
>
> I solved major server downtime issues in various, separate labs (i.e.,
> couldn't be connected to IT's networks for various reasons you can
> assume ;)

   'Nuff said.  I've done work in those kinds of environments too.  Copper 
paint looks cool.

> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Yeah the Yonah Celeron core seems to have 512k L2 cache (or so says
> > Wikipedia) whereas the AMD Geode NX doesn't have any L2 cache at all,
> > and L2 cache makes a huge performance improvement.
> > The Geode NX runs at lower power at 6W compared to about 19W, but I'm
> > guessing that the power savings likely isn't worth the performance hit.
>
> You're confusing the Geode LX with the NX, the NX _is_ an "Athlon-M".  ;)
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_%28processor%29#Geode_NX
>
> All Geode products from AMD have L2 cache -- 256KiB typical for NX.
> That's in addition to the split 4x L1 cache AMD has over Intel.

   I had looked it up, so I was talking about the NX (but thanks for the link 
anyway) -- I just didn't know that AMD LX and NX had L2 cache, which is why 
it seemed like I may have been talking about the LX.

> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I've focused more on Geode LX based products, i.e. more embedded
> > x86-compatible hardware, for use as low-powered Linux boxes as firewalls
> > or other uses, and that kind of hardware doesn't cover 500 GB storage
> > that performs well.
>
> The LX is really an old core.  Nothing like the NX.

   Mmm.  Good to know.  I'll keep it in mind for when I need the next FW 
upgrade.

   But for what I currently need embedded HW for, the LX is really more 
fitting being that it runs much cooler (no heat sink required).  I just got a 
few of:
    http://www.pcengines.ch/alix2c3.htm
 also available at:
    http://www.mini-box.com/Alix-2B-Board-3-LAN-3-MINI-PCI_1

 Fun little boxes.  Loading Debian wasn't terribly hard because I found 
instructions; because there's no VGA they require understanding how to 
redirect all of the normal console I/O to the serial port (grub, kernel 
bootup messages, getty login).  For those who want to see how it's done, I 
used the instructions (see the 2008/02/21 post) at:
    http://yasu-2.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html

No I can't read the text either, but the screenshots are in English.

Another set of instructions (in Enlish this time) at:
    http://peter.wm.sk/p/?p=20

> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Is the Atom licensing restrictive or something?  WTH?  I wonder why it's
> > not getting more widespread adoption.
>
> First off, Atom was just _announced_, 0 products yet.  ;)

   Oh.  Well, that's a damper!  ;-)  I suspected this, but wasn't sure.

...
> Intel has long contended that people wanted an embedded x86 rather than
> non-x86.  This may be true for server hardware, like HBAs for network
> and storage.  But for portables, it's more debatable for things not
> running Windows.

   Sure, yeah.  I just happen to like the convenience of not having to load a 
cross-compiler, and not having to have any concern over packages that FTBFS 
[Fail To Build From Source] for the target non-x86 architecture.  Just trying 
to keep things simple.

> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > It also seems to me I've experimentally gotten more reliability out of
> > 3.5" hard disks than 2.5" hard disks -- however this statement is
> > completely subjective, only has a tiny sample set (less than 5  2.5"
> > drives) and I haven't (yet) read any hard data comparing 3.5" to 2.5"
> > disk reliability.
>
> Let me guess ... you're comparing 2.5" disks in notebooks?

   Right.  And 3.5" disks in portable drives, so yes, apples + oranges.

> I'm talking about 2.5" v. 3.5" in the _same_ environment.  ;)

   Gotcha.

> I had a colleague complain about his 2.5" disc reliability versus 3.5",
> and I fully witnessed him drop his 2.5" external drive on the floor.
> After he did so, and I challenged him, he responded, "oh, it's small so
> it can take it."  I then took his 3.5" external disk and motioned that I
> was going to do the same and he said, "no, you'll break it!"
>
> I rest my case.  ;)

   Heh.  Interesting.  Whenever possible I've dropped neither, thinking that 
they had equal fragility.  :-)  So I avoided doing the "gravity check".

> Chris Knadle wrote:
> > I don't even know how to compare these, beacause practially speaking
> > it's just not possible to use a 3.5" disk exactly like a 2.5" disk.
>
> Ah ha!  So you are _not_ comparing apples and apples, eh?
> Both 2.5" and 3.5" have the _exact_same_ connectors for SATA.  ;)

   Hey, now that's cool.  I thought it was a special SATA connector for laptop 
SATA drives.  Nice that that's not the case.

...
> In fact, it's never been recommended that a 15Krpm drives be
> manufactured with larger than 3" (not 3.5") platters, hence why the
> first 15Krpm invented last decade had only 3" platters (not 3.5"), even
> though they were in a 3.5" HD enclosure.

   I knew about that problem, so that makes sense.

> So within the next few years, it's extremely likely that 2.5" will
> _overtake_ 3.5" drive shipments.  There's going to be a shift from 3.5"
> to 2.5" as the primary drive, and 1.8" will likely be the next 2.5" --
> especially since EEPROM drives are often sold in 1.8".
>
> The 3.5" drive is going the way of the 5.25" disc.  In all honesty, from
> the standpoint of reliability, it's about time -- especially its utter
> lack of ability to survive G forces and vibration like 2.5".

   Friends of mine have had their fair share of dead 3.5" disks from dropping 
them, but we all avoided 2.5" disks where possible.  Probably the wrong 
decision knowing what you've told me.  ;-)  Oh well.

   -- Chris

-- 

Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle at coredump.us