this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
68 points (94.7% liked)

Selfhosted

40736 readers
443 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am currently using an old laptop (circa 2015) with a 250GB SSD in it, and 4GB of RAM. It runs Fedora 39 Server, and only hosts a Jellyfin instance through Docker right now (though I want to use Nextcloud later too). There is only 15GB of storage left on it, and the CPU is constantly overloaded (due to forced transcoding). I happen to have a lot of 500GB 3.5" HDDs laying around, and I want to use them in RAID 5. What hardware would be good for having 4 HDDs, and running Jellyfin and Nextcloud in Docker? I'm okay with either having just a 4-bay NAS (as long as it can handle transcoding (MKV 480p -> MP4)), or having a 4-bay NAS and a server/computer/NUC. I only have a budget of CAD$900 (USD$658 as of writing), but I am willing to go to CAD$1000 if absolutely necessary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It totally doesn't

I'm running a 14th gen i9 with a 4080. It's a power hungry boy. 1500w power supply. Generally using about 600-800w.

Running this 24/7 costs me <$10/month in electricity.

The old compaq presario with a Pentium II that probably pulled down 100w running Ubuntu server as described here made no statistically significant change in my electric bill. That is to say, it's about as much change as being good or bad at turning off your lights when you're not using them. It's negligible.

[–] ReasonablePea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

At 600 watts running continuously wouldn't that be 432 kWh a month?

Assuming you didn't mean you were running your gaming computer as the server.

At 100 watts that comes out to 72 kWh, in CT where I live rates are waaaay higher then what I calculate your rate to be (around 2.5 cents per kWh)

For me a 100 watt server is about ~$22 a month to run.

Are you sure your paying 2.5 cents per kWh?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Idk what I'm paying per kwh, I am just going off my monthly bills.

There are other power fluctuates, I'm sure. I pay it no mind I just look at the bill. 🤷‍♂️

So far no bill has arrived that made me change behavior.

Edit: I've also never measured what my machine actually pulls down continuously/when idle. I just know that it's components demand that range, and that I need the headroom in my power supply for spikes.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's great if it works for you. However, a lot of us don't want the bigger power bill. It also has the problem of heating everything up.

I like CPUs with lower TDPs

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No "old i7" as I suggested, is going to meaningfully increase the temp of your room if it has any cooling solution in place.

Your stubbornness around a perfectly practical solution is absurd. I won't bother convincing you further -- it's the obvious cost effective solution.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The problem is it isn't cost effective with electricity. You can pick up a CPU that is more efficient.

I'm not saying your wrong but what your describing is not great for some people including myself.

Your not wrong but there are also trade offs

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It is still by far most cost effective.

Your argument amounts to nothing.