The Problem
This brings me to my latest debate. Do I get one or more efficient computers with power efficient processors that can reliably handle low level tasks, or a single beefier computer? Technology has caught up to this while I was just letting my server run, because it just worked. Most home servers are idle most of the time, as you aren’t getting the demand a server with many users would receive, even with a full household. My NAS is running on an N100 CPU with 32GB of RAM.
The N100 has 4 cores, which is akin to having 4 different CPUs. My server is running a processor that is a few generations older, with 6 cores. The benchmark of the N100 is about 1/3 of the score given to the older processor, but also uses a 10th of the power consumption. The NAS has an average usage of 3% CPU, as a NAS needs RAM to cache data, but serving it takes very little in terms of capacity. By comparison, the server with the more powerful processor, running Jellyfin(a media server), Immich(photo server), Frigate(NVR), and more, is averaging 20% of more.
Plenty of CPU Maybe, but what about GPU?
Some of this involves hardware transcoding, using the GPU, to transcode video streams for Jellyfin. Frigate can use the GPU to run object detection. So, purchasing a Mini PC means another GPU, and the CPU can handle some low demand services. The alternative is to go for a an external GPU. However, the used computer my beefier CPU is in, is one I bought refurbished, only to discover that the PCI-E slot I would need to do that was not soldered onto the motherboard for some reason, which brought me to the idea of dividing the server, rather than replacing it entirely.
Multiple Computers…but in Software? Virtualization
Some people who have homelabs opt to go in a completely different direction. Virtualization. They have multiple virtual computers running on one server. There are advantages to this in that you can tear down a virtual computer and replace it, you can back up each piece separately. That leaves one with a lot of choices. I’ve read dozens of opinions and talked to several people about this.
Is more hardware better than virtualization? And if the idea of a low power CPU is to reduce energy costs, how does more than one of them help?
Final Thoughts and a question
As a final thought, having multiple pieces of hardware increases complexity, and thus maintenance time, but independent hardware means a failure in one system doesn’t mean a failure in another, the same isolation virtualization offers.
I have gone back and forth on a conclusion. I have seen people who run their entire infrastructure on a mini PC. That may be good for many people, but some might find themselves straining under the load.
But, what do you think? Am I better off upgrading or bifurcating?
