[sf-lug] "Stick PC" and other SFF computers

Fri Sep 8 20:26:00 PDT 2023

Thanks Rick, that was very informative.  The storage is definitely the weak
point.  I booted off an USB stick for about a year before the stick wore
out (then just switched back to the internal Ubuntu 14.04).  The 32GB (not
64GB after all), micro sd has been in the stick for four years, collected
300000+jpgs from a few security cams, and hasn't given me any problems. I
also email the pics out, so the stick's just a local backup. The wireless
and bluetooth work just fine, and I mostly use a USB hub for kb and mouse.
When they were remaindered, I got a few for <$40, and they certainly were
worth it for my use case.
Ken

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:18 PM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> To recap, Ken wondered about suitability of a Intel Compute Stick
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Compute_Stick, discontinued 2020)
> to host a mailing list serve.  It's a fair question and _mostly_ OK
> -- except for being badly handicapped for storage.
>
> It's an example of "Stick PC", a fascinating ultra-small,
> ultra-low-power complete computer, made possible by flash media, VLSI
> chipsets, extremely versatile ports like HDMI, and extremely
> power-thrifty CPUs (Intel Atom, ARM).
>
> All other things being equal, the smaller the Small Form Factor (SFF),
> the better, as long as the generated heat can be
> radiated/convected/conducted away well enough.  IMO, Stick PC, though,
> is too mimimal for a reliable server.  "Stick PC" isn't a formal spec,
> just a general size and shape.  You get something barely bigger than a
> USB stick and about the same shape.  You can plug it directly into the
> HDMI port of a monitor, for video output.  Often, power gets supplied it
> via a tiny USB On-The-Go port.  There may be a USB 2.0 port (w/microUSB
> connector), and a microSD slot.  And that's it.
>
> THat's not terrible.  You could even have a pair of external SSDs
> RAID1-mirrored and connected to the USB (via a hub?).
>
> But, honestly, what problem are you trying to solve by going so tiny and
> cramped?  I know rent in SF is high, but is this because of living in a
> closet?
>
> But, point is, going for SFF but not _that_ tiny opens up possibilities
> that matter.
>
> One way to discuss this is to talk about standard motherboard sizes,
> which _are_ formally defined.  Let's talk about some -- and, for
> comparison's sake, the industr-standard ATX form factor for commodity PC
> motherboards is 9.6" × 12".
>
>
> Pico-ITX (3.9' × 2.8")
> --------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico-ITX
>
> Pretty darned small.  You get a selection of ports, but, e.g., only one
> SATA port, not two (so no RAID1-mirroring, not without an optional
> daughterboard).  You can have a real computer with it, like this one:
>
> http://dathsgarage.dk/retro-computer-collection/computers/others/via-artigo-a1000-pico-itx/
> As one of the pictures points out, the whole computer is about the size
> of a classic half-height CD-ROM drive.
>
> I respect these.  I just think it's good for a server, including a home
> server, to be able to have mirrored, high-speed, highly reliable mass
> storage.  Without an exotic daughterboard and probably a bigger case,
> you'll not be getting that.
>
>
> Nano-ITX (4.7" × 4.7")
> --------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-ITX
>
> More tempting.  VIA's EPIA N motherboard is an example.  Still only one
> SATA connector, but now you also get a mini-PCI slot.  I think these
> might be gone from the market, though?  I mean, mini-PCI in 2023?
> And a VGA port?
>
>
> Mini-ITX (6.7" × 6.7")
> --------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-ITX
>
> I still think this is the sweet spot.  The system's big enough to
> dissipate heat well, you get a PCI Express slot (sometimes two slots
> using riser cards), and the box might have enough room and connectors
> for two SSDs.  Kick-ass.
>
> I have sitting in a cabinet a couple of spare mini-ITX-type SFF
> computers made by Zotac, which I consider just the thing for many home
> and small server uses.  _And_, if you avoid having an overpowered (e.g.,
> gamer) CPU, maybe you can run the box fanless, thus silent, low-heat,
> and ultra-low-power.
>
>
> Mini-ATX (5.9" x 5.9")
> --------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_ATX
> https://www.pctechguide.com/motherboards/atx-form-factor
>
> As the description says, just a scaled-down variant of ATX (created by
> Intel in 1996), always with a low-power "mobile" CPU.  I'll frankly
> admit I just haven't seen this, much.  I think they are or were mostly
> used for mini-tower systems.
>
>
> microATX (9.6" x 9.6")
> --------
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroATX
>
> Another Intel effort (1997) at slightly scaling down ATX, about 25%
> shorter in one dimension.  One advantage is that it's backward compatible
> with ATX, as in, you can mount it in your sprawling ATX box and
> everything is in the right place.  A microATX board will take a maximum
> of four PCI-Express expansion boards vs. ATX's seven, but, honestly, how
> many do you need?  Rarely would you need more than two, and often only
> one or zero, if you plan right.
>
>
>
>
> So, with that survey, let's get back to:  What's the goal?  Yes,
> generically it's true that the smaller and more power-sipping the
> system, the lower your power bill and the less heat output.  (Also,
> the cooler your equipment runs, the longer it'll last.)  _But_, when
> you run the numbers on power-usage/expense, you see that diminishing
> returns sets in.
>
> Back in 2013, when I was picking replacement server hardware, I strongly
> considered jumping ship from x86 to ARM -- Raspberry Pi or something
> else -- and power-consumption / heat was one major argument.  But
> you lose a _lot_ (not discussed here) in making that CPU-arch choice,
> and the power consumption of a modern system based on a properly
> selected x86_64 CPU with SSDs is actually pretty tiny.
>
>
>
>
> My 2013-era CompuLab Intense PC:
> 7.5" x 6.3" x 1.6" case, passively cooled with massive fins
> 1.4GHz 3rd generation Celeron CPU:   CPU Thermal Design Power (TDP) is 17W
> (max under load)
> 2x SO-DIMM 204-pin DDR3 SDRAM (max 16GB)
> 2x internal SATA, 2x eSATA
> HDMI and DisplayPort (but it's a server, so who cares?)
> 2x GbE LAN (and other stuff)
> Lots of USB2, and a pair of USB3 ports.
> Expansion:  Half-size mini-PCIe socket, _and_ full-size mini-PCIe/mSATA
> socket
>
> Did not come with mass storage, which I bought separately and attached
> externally.  But, not counting those two SSDs, total power consumption
> normally is about 12-15W for the CompuLab as a whole.  The difference in
> PG&E charges between the CompuLab and something even tinier and
> thriftier is, well, IMO not worth the trouble.
>
> (CompuLab's IntensePC was also available with an Intel Core i7 or i5, as
> in the review cited below, but I deliberately did _not_ want that, but
> rather the cooler-running, power-thriftier Celeron.)
>
>
> Here's a picture of one -- banana not included:
>
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/6908/compulab-intensepc-system-review-fanless-ivy-bridge
>
> If you want one with an i5 CPU, used, it's yours for $200 (8GB RAM, 1TB
> intternal HD):  https://www.ebay.com/itm/166184161534
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> SF-LUG <http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lugSF-LUG> is at
> http://www.sf-lug.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20230908/833982d6/attachment-0001.html>