Hey!
I've decided that it's time to finally get something resembling an actual server for my home setup, and I was hoping you folks could give me some pointers (given the current prices).
My current set up is just my old laptop with 2 external hard drives plugged in - one is the regular portal USB HDD, another is 3.5 HDD plugged via powered enclosure (ZFS and LUKS on both). I want to switch that for something relatively small, but extendable, as I want to add more disk space in the future. I'm selfhosting Plex, Immich and Navidrome, and occasionally some multiplayer games like Valheim. I'm not planning to use Proxmox or TrueNAS/whatever, I mostly just plan to throw Debian on it and spin everything in Docker.
I looked through some guides on https://selfhosting.sh/ and on Reddit, but that just got me more confused, as everyone keeps suggesting Optiplexes and NUCs, but I don't get how to combine that with 20TB+ disk space while ensuring the disks are secure and well powered. Plus my understanding is most of those mini-PC's/refurbished workstations use regular DDR3/4, whereas I was hoping to get ECC.
Should I go DIY route, or is there something I could get as a solid enough base to expand in the future? If DIY is the answer - what mobo/cpu/case should I get? My ideal budget (for everything excluding hard drives and maybe PSU since I have one lying around) is ~500 euros, but if paying a bit more would mean a substantially better deal - then I'd be OK with that. I'm in Berlin, so if you know any good local markets - that'd be great too.
Thanks!
Why do you want ECC? (Hint: unless you're running a business database dealing with financials, you don't need it). I've run Windows server on desktop hardware since the 90's with no issues, and today's hardware is far better than what we had then.
The reason people settle on NUCs and SFF desktops is power. They virtually sip watts.
I don't usually recommend specifics for someone but rather ideas and ways to look at your requirements, but given your requirements (20 TB), it would be worth considering a commercial NAS, or at least a NAS enclosure running a NAS OS like UnRAID or TrueNAS.
Expansion is generally not something I'd think about for a NAS (though it can be done today). I expand my NAS once a year (swap out one drive) but I keep 3 local copies - so if it failed I can restore locally rather than from a cloud backup.
So your data lives on a NAS, and you can then either run your services there (they mostly support containers, etc these days), but I'd get a NUC or SFF to host that stuff. It makes for nice separation and gives you some flexibility.
Back to SFF and NUC - my last desktop hardware idled at 100 watts. It was visible on my power bill and used more power than my lights or just about any other single device other than heat or stove.
My SFF server idles at just under 20 watts and peaks at 80 when I'm converting videos. It currently has 8Tb of storage, but I could easily get 20 in there, it would just be expensive.
Oh, and a good NAS can spin down drives to save power when idle, which for most of us is like 90% of the time (I have an ancient NAS as redundancy that does this - it idles around 5w).
Strong disagree. I ran non-ECC memory on my server and services would unexpectedly crash maybe once per week. Over the span of a year I had two databases get corrupted that cost me a lot of time to fix. I tried swapping sticks but it happened with all of them. I switched to ECC memory and the problems disappeared. I needed more memory anyway and the price delta for ECC was about $100. I didn't have to swap CPUs or anything, AMD desktop CPUs and chipsets support it out of the box. ECC memory is absolutely worth it.
I'll strongly disagree. Anyone who cares about the data they store in their server should care about ECC. There's a specific reason it's used so widely by servers, not just financial databases or whatever.
There's also a ton of misinformation on the Internet about it, so don't buy into the "ZFS write hole" or whatever. But ECC is very important in my experience. It's saved my bacon in a material way twice now, and in ways that normal RAM would have just silently continued breaking things. Really that's not much of a price premium if you're willing to buy used, so it's more a question of why not?
There are many computers (especially business line computers including low power SFF) that will take ECC or even ship with it from ebay or whatever. Or you can build rigs with ECC, I've done this route twice and had good results.
Disagree all you want - ECC has no bearing outside of high-resiliency databases.
I say this having nearly 4 decades in enterprise - ECC only matters then.
OP is definitely not doing anything requiring ECC, recommending it is just wasting money.
Adding another data point pro-ECC: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-ECC
I respect your perspective and personal experience, and I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince whoever might come along and read this that the small extra price is worth it if their computer is going to hold data dear to them and be running 24x7.
ECC is extremely good at covering cosmic ray bitflips, which happen with extreme regularity on software that runs and modifies data on the fly- server software. Yes, even home run stuff. That's just playing Russian roulette, it probably won't break anything, but why take the risk at least 10 times every day?
It's also great at catching falling RAM sticks and preventing them from doing horrible things to every bit of data running through them. This is the failure ECC caught for me at home twice.
I have only 2.5 decades in the enterprise server and software space, I won't claim to your 4. But I know I wouldn't take that risk at work, and I value my home data more rather than less.
I'm not a researcher or even a particularly well practiced rhetorician, so here's probably a much more convincing argument.
Or this perhaps.
Another link: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-ECC
He has very strong opinions on certain topics, ECC being important is one of them.
ECC is not a hard requirement for me, but if I can get it - I'll try to, as to me it makes sense for something that runs 24/7 and handles my personal data.
I have a very strong aversion to separating storage from my server. I just don't see why I need to route power and network to 2 small boxes (none of which would do what I need it to do on its own + considering very crappy room layouts in rented apartments) and then fiddle with network access, when 1 slightly bigger box would do what I need it to do. Some 7-8 years ago I've bought dirt cheap second-hand Huananzhi x79 with Xeon E5 and DDR3-ECC with some low profile NVIDIA GPU and it all still works now - and something like that would mostly be OK for me even now (except I left it in another country).
That said, it's possible a reasonably powerful NAS will be enough for me on its own?