Hi: With regards to cost, I'd be looking for a solution under $300. I've looked at the Intel NUC and other equivalent "media" boxes and the idle power is above my 10W target. The closest I've found comes in at 13W idle is the Acer Veriton with the Centrino chipset. I've confirmed their specs using a Kill-a-watt meter. I am leaning towards an x86 solution and appreciate the comments regarding IO limitations with the ARM chipsets. I won't be doing any more complicated than: - print serving - DNS - DHCP - media share via nfs/afs/smb - file share via afs (time machine and data for video projects) - Squeezebox media server (yes its old, but still runs well) Regards, Peter On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM, <linux-request [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca> wrote: > Send Linux mailing list submissions to > linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > linux-request [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > > You can reach the person managing the list at > linux-owner [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Linux digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Low Powered server (Spencer Cheng) > 2. Re: An email question (Alex Pilon) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Spencer Cheng <scheng [ at ] aotera [ dot ] org> > To: Peter Meyer <petermeyer69 [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> > Cc: Linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 08:19:14 -0400 > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] Low Powered server > Hi Peter, > > On May 1, 2014, at 20:47, Peter Meyer <petermeyer69 [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com> wrote: > > > I ended up buying a Koolu (PC ION > > 603) box with 512 Meg running on an AMD Geode processor. This machine is > > still kicking and since that time I've added a USB hub and the data > traffic > > to the attached drives has only grown. > > > > I have one of those as well doing duties as a mail & web server. It’s a > pretty wimpy box which can barely run spamassassin. > > > I am once again looking for a similar solution. My new requirements are: > > > > 1. < 10 watts power consumption > > 2. GigE > > 3. USB3 > > 4. Sata3 (optional) > > 5. > 1G Memory > > > > I need something to run network data a bit faster than my current > > Koolu/USB2 Drive scheme. > > The faster ARM cards can meet your requirement. I just received Nvidia’s > Jetson dev card (Tegra 4). Haven’t had a chance to benchmark them but I > would bet money that they are faster than the Tegra 3 based cards. The > biggest weakness of 32 bit ARM CPUs is that their memory system tends to be > slower (with few exceptions namely SOCs designed for server deployment) > which means their I/O system tends to be slower. > > You didn’t mention cost? :) > > For general purpose server use, I would suggest one of the x86 boxen with > a laptop chipset. They can come pretty close to 10W. I’ve seen a ultrabook > that drew less than 10W under normal use. > > /sc > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alex Pilon <alp [ at ] alexpilon [ dot ] ca> > To: David Patte ₯ <dpatte [ at ] relativedata [ dot ] com> > Cc: linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 10:35:20 -0400 > Subject: Re: [OCLUG-Tech] An email question > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:55:07AM -0400, David Patte ₯ wrote: > > Many websites currently use a persons email address and password as a > way of > > insuring security for logging into a website. > > *Supposedly*. > > > If someone has an existing email mailbox specified by a particular email > > address, can anyone on this list imagine any easy way that people can > > intercept email sent to that address without knowing the person's > password > > at the mailbox site? > > Sure! Be root on the mail server and just peek at the mail spool. > > In all due seriousness though, that's very environment specific. I can't > really provide a generic answer. Provided that basic security is in > place, no, but you can't assume that it can be done easily. Still: > > * How many sites don't do TLS (and please, SMTP+STARTTLS and TLS ≥ 1.2 > ideally, not SMTPS)? IP traffic can and has been subverted en masse. > * How many use export-grade ciphers? > * How many accept certificates issued by untrusted CAs? Think of > China and some businesses with man-in-the-middling firewalls. > * How many end up having some relay in the clear at some point? > * How many store emails on insecure storage? > * How many are operated by untrusted administrators? > > And then there's poorly implemented SMTP [^1] servers. > > I'd look at how SMTP works first, if you want to understand. > > I recently advised a family member against providing credit card > information over email sent to someone whose mail server only did SMTP > in the clear. Scary how incompetent (and I do not use that word lightly, > given the stakes) some mail server administrators are. There's missteps > with little practical impact for what matters, then there's negligence. > > [^1]: Anybody still using UUCP, or have a need for LMTP? > > Regards, > > Alex Pilon > > _______________________________________________ > Linux mailing list > Linux [ at ] lists [ dot ] oclug [ dot ] on [ dot ] ca > http://oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/linux > >