[Rack] Power / Stallion Replacement

Jonathan Lassoff jof at thejof.com
Sat Sep 17 01:57:12 PDT 2011


On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Ben Kochie <ben at nerp.net> wrote:

> I did some power testing in the rack today.
>
> Stallion (2x Xeon 3.4GHz, 3GB ram, ~271 GiB SCSI disk raid) is using about
> 300W.  I figure the pony machine is about 150-200 (I need to power it down
> to test).  The rest of the stuff fills out the rest to total the rack
> power at around 650 Watts.
>
> This is contributing to about 450kWh/month in power (~$100)  This means
> that stallion is using about $50/month in power.  The tahoe node machine
> has something like 6G of ram and 6T of disk.  We could easily run stallion
> and pony on it as VMs and cut the rack power in half.  Or we could just
> replace stallion with that machine and still save $25/month in power.
>

I think that one of the design goals of setting up stallion was to have a
host to support things that really ought to be up all the time (like the
touchscreens, or front gate relay).
However, I'm not sure why it ended up in such a beefy machine just to host
NFS mounts and TFTP.

As previously suggested, the small mini-ITX board that has a bunch of serial
ports could easily host NFS and TFTP with some more storage.


As for the LAFS box, I wonder if the security of the host would be impacted
by either running in or hosting a VM on it. I suspect that if we're just
hosting a storage node and not a gateway, either would be fine.

Is the LAFS box already imaged up and ready to go? If so, it might be easier
to add a VM to the existing system.

--j
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/rack/attachments/20110917/93e766d4/attachment.htm 


More information about the Rack mailing list