Would you consider offering a headless model, for "server" kind of tasks?
Video and audio outputs would be unnecessary (configure via remote desktop, vnc, console, web), and freed space/resources would go to increase functional interfaces: eSATA/USB/ethernet/wifi/BT.
This might become the killer configuration - most of people I can think about wouldn't consider fit-pc for desktop use, but rather as excellent tiny server.
Headless "server" model
Re: Headless "server" model
I'd love to have Fit-PC2 with 2 (or 3) ethernet ports and no HDMI, it'd make a perfect router.
Re: Headless "server" model
Yes, I opt for creating a special server version of fit-pc, which should probably be called a fit-server. The current performance offered by fit-pc2 is far enough to consider running a web/mail/file/svn/database/print/backup/dns/ntp/you-name-it server or torrent/router/firewall on it. Two features make fit-server a perfect choice for such a home and small company server: fanless operation and ultra-low power. These two features go in line with the fact that fit-server needs to operate at all times.
I've been following the forums closely and my guess is that most people buy fit-pc in fact in order to run a server on it. Unfortunately, the current product (fit-pc2) is not perfectly suited for running a server. Its main disadvantage is the presence of hardware components (Intel GMA500 graphics chipset) with closed-source/binary drivers that work well only with a specific old version of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is mostly a desktop-oriented GNU/Linux distribution, which contrasts with the needs of a server environment. I would personally limit myself to running a Hardened Gentoo or one of BSD variants as the server OS.
Fit-server also presents different hardware needs than a desktop system. Many components of fit-pc2 are useless in the considered scenario. Some additional componends are called for.
** Here are the hardware requirements for an ideal fit-server:
* There can be no component with closed-source/binary drivers only.
* CPU: E.g. Intel Atom Z530 1.6GHz offers enough performance.
* Chipset: E.g. Intel US15W SCH.
* Memory: E.g. 1GB DDR2-533 on-board, but 128 MB would also be enough. I just checked that my web/mail/file/svn/database server currently uses 48 MB of memory.
* Storage: Internal bay for TWO 2.5" SATA HDDs, so that both HDDs could be connected in a RAID array. This is imperative for server environment, where data reliability is of great importance. Personally, I would love fit-server to have space for 4 HDDs, in which case it would assume a more cubical shape.
* Display and Graphics: unneeded. The server is a headless machine, which is administered using SSH. In all my servers there is no display adapters for noise, power, temperature and cost benefit.
* Audio: unneeded.
* Networking: Minimum two Ethernet ports, as fast as possible. WLAN is not necessary.
* eSATA: Useful for connecting fast external HDDs, useful for e.g. file servers.
* USB: 2x USB 2.0. No keyboard/mouse connection is necessary. USB would be used for ocasional connection of a thumb drive or optical storage drive for e.g. emergency booting. It could also be used for attaching external printers, useful for print servers.
* On/off button: useful for requesting soft shutdown and restart in emergency cases when SSH connection cannot be established.
** Here are the software requirements for an ideal fit-server:
* Bootable from HDD, USB thumb drive, USB CDROM, USB hard disk, over network.
* Server-like BIOS options, e.g. power state after power failure.
* User-installed operating system.
As one can observe, the following components are removed from fit-pc2 in order to create fit-server: miniSD socket, WLAN, Intel GMA500 graphics, DVI/HDMI connector, audio chipset, line-out, line-in, mic, few USB ports, IR. Some components need to be added, most notably second HDD bay.
The removal of WLAN is somewhat arguable. Clearly fit-server would ideally be connected to the network using an ethernet cable connection due to its superior reliability, speed and security as compared to wireless connection. Some people might however want to run a wireless access point on fit-server. But my guess is that most ISPs offer DSL connections with a fanless low-power wireless router nowadays.
I kindly ask CompuLab to consider such a product.
I also ask all users to comment on the suggested specifications.
I've been following the forums closely and my guess is that most people buy fit-pc in fact in order to run a server on it. Unfortunately, the current product (fit-pc2) is not perfectly suited for running a server. Its main disadvantage is the presence of hardware components (Intel GMA500 graphics chipset) with closed-source/binary drivers that work well only with a specific old version of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is mostly a desktop-oriented GNU/Linux distribution, which contrasts with the needs of a server environment. I would personally limit myself to running a Hardened Gentoo or one of BSD variants as the server OS.
Fit-server also presents different hardware needs than a desktop system. Many components of fit-pc2 are useless in the considered scenario. Some additional componends are called for.
** Here are the hardware requirements for an ideal fit-server:
* There can be no component with closed-source/binary drivers only.
* CPU: E.g. Intel Atom Z530 1.6GHz offers enough performance.
* Chipset: E.g. Intel US15W SCH.
* Memory: E.g. 1GB DDR2-533 on-board, but 128 MB would also be enough. I just checked that my web/mail/file/svn/database server currently uses 48 MB of memory.
* Storage: Internal bay for TWO 2.5" SATA HDDs, so that both HDDs could be connected in a RAID array. This is imperative for server environment, where data reliability is of great importance. Personally, I would love fit-server to have space for 4 HDDs, in which case it would assume a more cubical shape.
* Display and Graphics: unneeded. The server is a headless machine, which is administered using SSH. In all my servers there is no display adapters for noise, power, temperature and cost benefit.
* Audio: unneeded.
* Networking: Minimum two Ethernet ports, as fast as possible. WLAN is not necessary.
* eSATA: Useful for connecting fast external HDDs, useful for e.g. file servers.
* USB: 2x USB 2.0. No keyboard/mouse connection is necessary. USB would be used for ocasional connection of a thumb drive or optical storage drive for e.g. emergency booting. It could also be used for attaching external printers, useful for print servers.
* On/off button: useful for requesting soft shutdown and restart in emergency cases when SSH connection cannot be established.
** Here are the software requirements for an ideal fit-server:
* Bootable from HDD, USB thumb drive, USB CDROM, USB hard disk, over network.
* Server-like BIOS options, e.g. power state after power failure.
* User-installed operating system.
As one can observe, the following components are removed from fit-pc2 in order to create fit-server: miniSD socket, WLAN, Intel GMA500 graphics, DVI/HDMI connector, audio chipset, line-out, line-in, mic, few USB ports, IR. Some components need to be added, most notably second HDD bay.
The removal of WLAN is somewhat arguable. Clearly fit-server would ideally be connected to the network using an ethernet cable connection due to its superior reliability, speed and security as compared to wireless connection. Some people might however want to run a wireless access point on fit-server. But my guess is that most ISPs offer DSL connections with a fanless low-power wireless router nowadays.
I kindly ask CompuLab to consider such a product.
I also ask all users to comment on the suggested specifications.
Re: Headless "server" model
Many Linux based NAS match your description much better then fit-PC2
Where I disagree:
- 128Mb - are you going to get a server to run a SINGLE app? I would say the more the better, 1Gb to 4Gb would be ideal and future proof
- 2 bays - meaningless. 2.5" disks are not designed to run in "real" server mode, they'll fail rather quickly anyways. If you want reliable config connect disks externally. There are plenty of applications where 32-64Gb USB flash would do perfectly.
So I'd vote - eliminate disk bays altogether (that's what SheevaPlug done - very smart). Use freed space and resources to expand connectivity
- Yes, connectivity is the most crucial thing for such a small box to be truly versatile. Due to form factor it can be used to control all kinds of things by Ethernet, Wi-Fi, USB, eSata, FireWire, XBee, and RS-232
Where I disagree:
- 128Mb - are you going to get a server to run a SINGLE app? I would say the more the better, 1Gb to 4Gb would be ideal and future proof
- 2 bays - meaningless. 2.5" disks are not designed to run in "real" server mode, they'll fail rather quickly anyways. If you want reliable config connect disks externally. There are plenty of applications where 32-64Gb USB flash would do perfectly.
So I'd vote - eliminate disk bays altogether (that's what SheevaPlug done - very smart). Use freed space and resources to expand connectivity
- Yes, connectivity is the most crucial thing for such a small box to be truly versatile. Due to form factor it can be used to control all kinds of things by Ethernet, Wi-Fi, USB, eSata, FireWire, XBee, and RS-232
-
irads
Re: Headless "server" model
I find the discussion thoughtful and interesting.
Please take a closer look at the US15W SCH:
- No SATA - only PATA
- GMA500 is integrated
- Only two 1x PCIe lanes
Since Menlow was originally designed for MIDs it is lacking on server oriented I/O.
Other than that I can see the use of the suggested features list.
Please take a closer look at the US15W SCH:
- No SATA - only PATA
- GMA500 is integrated
- Only two 1x PCIe lanes
Since Menlow was originally designed for MIDs it is lacking on server oriented I/O.
Other than that I can see the use of the suggested features list.
Re: Headless "server" model
Does the US15W SCH support 1 or 2 PATA devices? If it supports two, how feasible would it be to put SATA bridge on both, but bring one of the SATA ports to outside as eSATA (without hotplug support obviously)? My primary intention for server-mode Fit-PC2 would be a router, where I don't need 2 disks, but having an eSATA port would allow for fast (faster than using USB anyway) RAID setups for people that need them.
As for graphics, I don't care about them on my servers, so it doesn't matter if the drivers aren't available - the fanciest thing running on my servers is Midnight Commander.
Since there are 2 PCIe lanes, would it be possible to have a model with 2 network cards and no WiFi?
As for graphics, I don't care about them on my servers, so it doesn't matter if the drivers aren't available - the fanciest thing running on my servers is Midnight Commander.
Since there are 2 PCIe lanes, would it be possible to have a model with 2 network cards and no WiFi?
Re: Headless "server" model
Thanks for your comments, edmidor, I find them very interesting. All you say is correct, I agree these would be good steps to take when designing a server without taking power, size, and fanlessness into consideration. But fit-pc is made to be ultra-energy efficient, and it should save some space as well. These should also be goals for fit-server. The energy consumption is the absolute top priority when designing a fit-server, so let me discuss your proposals with that requirement in mind.
* RAM: "The more the better" law contradicts power requirement. As far as I remember from my microelectronics lectures, RAM is an array of billions of transistors, which need to be constantly clocked in order to maintain the state. This clocking requires energy, no matter whether your system is idle or runs at full load. The power required is dependent linearly on the size of the memory (number of transistors). So 4GB RAM would use 32 times as much energy for clocking as 128MB RAM.
So it's important not to use much more RAM than one actually needs. As for the number of applications running, I personally run a Gentoo server, which runs more than 100 processes (including 8x nfsd, many qmail and courier-imap related, mysqld, rtorrent, 10x apache2, plus all the usual administrative services, e.g. cron, logging, backup, sshd, etc.). This system usually consumes around 50MB of RAM. The following forum thread discusses RAM requirements for a small server:
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/peripherals-hardware/6673-how-much-ram-small-server.html
People seem to agree that 256MB is enough, with 512 required for some quake game server.
I believe that resorting to 1GB RAM is useful when people "desktopize" their servers, i.e. they run X server with full KDE/GNOME just to use some graphical tools to manage their server, or use it also as a desktop machine. Or if instead of BSD or GNU/Linux they run Windows.
But it would be interesting to get some more empirical evidence. Could some people running small servers post how much RAM they use (without any graphical environment)?
* 2x 2.5" HDDs: When running a NAS for your family, 500GB can quickly become a must. The same holds for a small company. Even in a fit-server one will need to connect two HDDs, if not today, then in a few months, for some reason (RAID, more space, backup, etc.).
2.5" HDDs are not for big servers, that's true, they don't handle huge loads well. They are designed to run in laptops. They are made to be small, energy efficient, quiet. But they can easily withstand the load of a small server. They are well-suited for a fit-server. You could have two inside a fit-server and run it under 10W. The SheevaPlug that you mentioned needs 19W even without any HDD.
If you connect two external HDDs, you will have six little boxes: fit-server, two HDDs and three power adapters. That's not a very "fit" solution. It approaches the space and energy consumption of a traditional small server.
As far as the "truly versatile box" is concerned, I don't think this is the goal of fit-server. Fit-PC2 seems to be a good "truly versatile box". Fit-server is supposed to fill another huge market gap.
* Chipset: Thanks for pointing out the problems, irads. I copy-pasted that chipset from Fit-PC2 specifications, as I saw Fit-PC2 supports SATA. I also didn't realize that GMA500 is integrated. I stand corrected. Perhaps one should choose another chipset+CPU. The combination used in Fit-PC2 seems to be optimized towards desktop usage with its media playing support.
Is there any ultra-low power chipset that would support SATA? It becomes increasingly difficult, and recently almost impossible, to buy PATA disks.
* Graphics: I agree with you, ender, that graphics is useless for small servers. Therefore we better care about removal of it. That would result in nice power, space and cost savings, which can be used for other components.
* RAM: "The more the better" law contradicts power requirement. As far as I remember from my microelectronics lectures, RAM is an array of billions of transistors, which need to be constantly clocked in order to maintain the state. This clocking requires energy, no matter whether your system is idle or runs at full load. The power required is dependent linearly on the size of the memory (number of transistors). So 4GB RAM would use 32 times as much energy for clocking as 128MB RAM.
So it's important not to use much more RAM than one actually needs. As for the number of applications running, I personally run a Gentoo server, which runs more than 100 processes (including 8x nfsd, many qmail and courier-imap related, mysqld, rtorrent, 10x apache2, plus all the usual administrative services, e.g. cron, logging, backup, sshd, etc.). This system usually consumes around 50MB of RAM. The following forum thread discusses RAM requirements for a small server:
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/peripherals-hardware/6673-how-much-ram-small-server.html
People seem to agree that 256MB is enough, with 512 required for some quake game server.
I believe that resorting to 1GB RAM is useful when people "desktopize" their servers, i.e. they run X server with full KDE/GNOME just to use some graphical tools to manage their server, or use it also as a desktop machine. Or if instead of BSD or GNU/Linux they run Windows.
But it would be interesting to get some more empirical evidence. Could some people running small servers post how much RAM they use (without any graphical environment)?
* 2x 2.5" HDDs: When running a NAS for your family, 500GB can quickly become a must. The same holds for a small company. Even in a fit-server one will need to connect two HDDs, if not today, then in a few months, for some reason (RAID, more space, backup, etc.).
2.5" HDDs are not for big servers, that's true, they don't handle huge loads well. They are designed to run in laptops. They are made to be small, energy efficient, quiet. But they can easily withstand the load of a small server. They are well-suited for a fit-server. You could have two inside a fit-server and run it under 10W. The SheevaPlug that you mentioned needs 19W even without any HDD.
If you connect two external HDDs, you will have six little boxes: fit-server, two HDDs and three power adapters. That's not a very "fit" solution. It approaches the space and energy consumption of a traditional small server.
As far as the "truly versatile box" is concerned, I don't think this is the goal of fit-server. Fit-PC2 seems to be a good "truly versatile box". Fit-server is supposed to fill another huge market gap.
* Chipset: Thanks for pointing out the problems, irads. I copy-pasted that chipset from Fit-PC2 specifications, as I saw Fit-PC2 supports SATA. I also didn't realize that GMA500 is integrated. I stand corrected. Perhaps one should choose another chipset+CPU. The combination used in Fit-PC2 seems to be optimized towards desktop usage with its media playing support.
Is there any ultra-low power chipset that would support SATA? It becomes increasingly difficult, and recently almost impossible, to buy PATA disks.
* Graphics: I agree with you, ender, that graphics is useless for small servers. Therefore we better care about removal of it. That would result in nice power, space and cost savings, which can be used for other components.
Re: Headless "server" model
1. SheevaPlug consumes between 3 and 7 W depending on load
http://www.cyrius.com/journal/debian/ki ... onsumption
2. RAM: Server that can actually do something useful must satisfy LAMP requirements, and its most definitely higher then 128Mb
3. HDD: Running two "green" 3.5" disks in a single RAID1 box with good power management is much more flexible and efficient solution - this way this box could be user as a server for those who can run without HDD at all - thus saving much more energy then by saving on RAM
http://www.cyrius.com/journal/debian/ki ... onsumption
2. RAM: Server that can actually do something useful must satisfy LAMP requirements, and its most definitely higher then 128Mb
3. HDD: Running two "green" 3.5" disks in a single RAID1 box with good power management is much more flexible and efficient solution - this way this box could be user as a server for those who can run without HDD at all - thus saving much more energy then by saving on RAM
Re: Headless "server" model
I'm looking for a PC that can function as a portable router with deep packet inspection/IDS capabilities.
In my experience, this would need a 1.1 Ghz processor and 1 GB RAM in the very least.
I'd like the following for a server/portable router:
In my experience, this would need a 1.1 Ghz processor and 1 GB RAM in the very least.
I'd like the following for a server/portable router:
- 2-3 NICs (At least 1 GigE would be nice)
1.1 or 1.6 Ghz Processor
1 GB RAM
VGA/DVI (Nice to have in addition to serial console)
OSS Linux/BSD drivers
Optional WiFi would be nice
SD
USB (USB hub chain-able)
No audio
Re: Headless "server" model
As a light headless server (proxy/mail/ftp...):
Need:
- Wake On Lan
- eSata
- dual-ethernet
Don't need:
- video (headless...)
- audio
Need:
- Wake On Lan
- eSata
- dual-ethernet
Don't need:
- video (headless...)
- audio