Image transcription:

Processor: (3.40 GHz) 4-Core Intel Core i7-6700 Processor

Memory (RAM): 32GB (2x16GB) DDR4 PC4 U Memory (for i-series/Core Processors)

Graphics Card: Integrated Graphics (with i series processors only) +$0.00

Drive 1: 3TB HDD SATA 7.2k 3.5" Hard Drive

Drive 2: 3TB HDD SATA 7.2k 3.5" Hard Drive

M.2 Storage: 512GB M.2 SSD NVMe Drive

Price: $291.95

My main concern with this option is energy usage. The CPU’s TDP is 65W, the CPU in my current server’s TDP is 35W.

It does have a few advantages over my current setup:

  • More RAM 8 → 32
  • Better CPU, passmark score 4766 → 8091, threads 4 → 8
  • Ability to use RAID, current setup only has the capacity for 1 drive.

Is this a good option or is there a better option? I’ve also been considering using an external drive enclosure with software RAID, but I heard that could be unreliable.

EDIT: Is the price good? Shipping is quite expensive (about $100), so I’m only planning on buying it if the deal is good.

  • Hopfgeist@feddit.deEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    RAID is generally a good thing but don’t get complacent, follow the 3-2-1 method

    To expand on that: Redundant drive setup and backups serve completely different purposes. The only overlap is in case of a single disk failure, where RAID (or similar) may save the data.

    Redundancy is all about reducing downtime in case of single hardware failures. Backups not only protect you from data loss in case of multiple simultaneous failures, but also from accidental deletion. Failures that require restoration of data almost always involve downtime. In short: You always need backups (unless it’s strictly a local cache, and easily recreatable), but if you want high availability, redundancy may help.

    3-2-1-rule for backups, in case you’re unfamiliar: 3 copies of important data, on 2 different media, with 1 off-site.