this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
20 points (91.7% liked)

Selfhosted

39980 readers
690 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm trying to build a DIY NAS, I already have some (6) 3.5" SATA disks, a Mini-ITX case, and power supply, but I'm still unsure on which motherboard & CPU to get. I think a motherboard + N100 combo is a good option because of the price and power consumption.

I'm currently using a MiniPC with an i5-6500T (4784 passmark) and an external HDD enclosure connected with USB using RAID-1 (software) which uses about 35W. The USB enclosure is limited to 2 slots, and I've heard from here that it can be problematic in combination with RAID. The N100 (5551) boards have a slightly better passmark score but most importantly more expandability (SATA & PCIe) and supposedly a lower power consumption. The i5-6500T has a TDP of 65W, the N100 a TDP of 6W, that doesn't say much but it seems to a lot better when looking at info online. The N100 also apparently has Quicksync support while the i5's support is limited and struggles to encode 1080p (100% CPU usage).

There are 2 main boards I'm considering. The BKHD 1264 and the ASRock N100M. ASRock is a better known brand, but their version only supports DDR4 and 2 SATA ports while the BKHD board supports DDR5, has 6 SATA ports, and has 4 × 2.5G network ports. I've also heard complaints about high temps (90c) with the N100m because it only has passive cooling, while the BKHD board has active cooling and a large heat sink. However, the BKHD board is a bit more expensive (~€150 vs ~€130), but it seems worth it because I won't have to add an external HBA.

What do you think would be the better option?

EDIT 2024-05-26: I ended up getting the ASUS Prime N100I-D D4 because it's significantly cheaper (€95). It does have less SATA ports (1), but I accidentally bought a SATA card so that actually works out pretty well.

all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The tdp is bullshit on the n100. It really means nothing, as it can pull closer to 14W idle, it's still good, but don't rely on the numbers too much, if that's important to you.

The thing I don't like about the n100 is that it only supports single channel RAM, and the naming makes no sense, as the n97 outperforms it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

While true, the 6W idle can be hit with proper tuning, I just wouldn't recommend it. Still, from what I've seen with mine, it overall uses less power than a pi4/5 at the plug. I'm pretty happy with the one running my network services. I'll be going AMD next round with the pstate improvements coming up once this one outlives it's usefulness though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What's a good AMD chip for low power?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you're simply looking at core-per-watt, any. If you just want a server system don't buy a G series APU chip.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

What if I've never built a headless system and am afraid of not having easy access to a GUI?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can always have a remote desktop and no monitor if you wish, or forward over SSH. Lots of options to have graphical control.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

How would you get through the install though? Are there any simple solutions without any graphics output?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Wow. Lots of questions.

What are you trying to solve for here?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't think you need graphics acceleration for the terminal

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Some kinda asshole here. Good luck.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There's a convenient web interface for managing Linux servers called cockpit. I use it myself. You can manage raid devices and add other packages to see historical system stats.

https://cockpit-project.org/