So I was wondering, what is exactly the use case of owning a server rack with huge CPUs and 256GB of DDR4 RAM with 1PB of storage?

Obviously, I'm kind of exaggerating here, but it does seem that most homelabs are big server racks with at least two CPUs and like 20 cores in total.

Why would I want to buy a server rack with all the bells and whistles when a low-power, small NAS can do the trick? What's the main advantage of having a huge server, compared to an average Synology NAS for example?

Honestly, I only see disadvantages tbh. It consumes way more power, costs way more money and the processing power it provides is probably only relevant for (small) businesses and not for an individual like me.

So, convince me. Why should I get a homelab instead of a regular NAS?

  • RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    ·
    5 months ago

    I started with a basic as shit NAS and was happy with it.

    Then i wanted Hardware Acceleration for my Plex Server because i wanted to stream high resolution content when i was out of the house.

    I then rebuilt my old Gaming Rig into a server.

    After i realized that i now have much more power to use i started to host a bunch of services; AdGuard, Plex, Sonarr, Radarr, Prowlarr, Overseerr, Homarr, Lidarr, SabNZBs, Kavita, Kaizoku, HomeBox, HomeAssistant, Nextcloud, FoundryVTT, PaperlessNGX, Audiobookshelf, Romm and Whisper for my HomeAssistant.

    That's stuff i would've never even had the chance to host on something simple like a little NAS.

    Oh and most homelabs are NOT racks with 2 cores.... in my case, old gaming PC with Ryzen 5 2600X, 16Gigs of Ram and GTX1660 Super

    • ara@lemmy.ml
      ·
      5 months ago

      Same, my game desktop was so powerful (i9 with 24 cores and 64 RAM DDR5) I converted it to Proxmox, pfSense with a Wi-Fi adapter that creates an access point, I have much more control of my local network and services I host, it's fun and the power usage isn't that much.

      • RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        ·
        5 months ago

        Any reason you chose pfSense over opnSense ? I heard opnSense was better or something.

        I really want to go down that rabbithole aswell and get myself some real network appliance with 10gig ethernet and take control over my network. I currently have a Fritz!Box by AVM that i bought myself so not via my ISP so it's already fairly controlled and configured by only me... but it has it's limitations; I can't setup PXE boot for example.

  • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
    ·
    4 months ago

    The big server is all about density and convenience. The thing will run many, many VMs without having to skimp on resources, and it will be easy to admin the VMs remotely.

    I have plans to pick up a big workstation to replace the little desktops I have around, and it will be more convenient since getting as console on a VM is much easier. Servers might also have a BMC, which would help admin the server.

  • slabber@lemmy.ml
    ·
    5 months ago

    I was debating between getting myself a NAS or some PC to setup my homelab. I decided for a PC as it gives me more freedom to install and personalize it the way I want.

    At the moment I'm running FreeBSD with jails on a Q920 with an i5 processor, 16 GB of RAM, one internal SSD with 512 GB and 2 external USB SDDs with each 1 TB which costed me around 300 Euros.

    Seems more than enough for the services I want to provide to myself which are the following.

    Navidrome > serves all my music locally and remotely.

    Zabbix > to monitor my servers

    DNSMasq > ad blocking and local dns

    gitea > repo for code and other docs

    Transmission > torrenting

    Radicale > webcal and webdav

    Photoprism > local photo gallery

    Vaultwarden > Password manager

    SearXNG > search

    HAproxy > to serve my public content easily to the web

    Mastodon

    Emby > local media server

    And I run a Linux VM on bhyve to serve 2 tools that I was not able to make work easily on FreeBSD.

    Besides that, the node replicates some data from my VPS as a backup solution.

    And I can't complain at all. That PC is doing its job just fine. No need for any rack that uses huge amount of electricity.

  • docktordreh@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    5 months ago

    I felt similar when deciding on a server for my small lab. I'll probably get a rack in a few years, but right now I'm at a point where an old desktop pc does the job and I'm happy with it.

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    ·
    5 months ago

    Here's my list of "maybe somedays" that I'd love to have all run off a single machine:

    1. Hash cracking. Red teaming isn't my career yet, but it would be nice if I had the tools ready when I get to that milestone

    2. locally served "Cloud" gaming. I'm tired of being limited to a single desktop when I could be playing skyrim on my phone, but I hate supporting *aaS models—I want to own my cake and eat it too.

    3. VM server. Basically turn everything else into a thin client. Also, what @ursakhiin@beehaw.org said. If I ever want to do realistic training, and not just stick to hackthebox indefinitely, I'm going to need to mimic a full network's worth of computers with multiple VLANs. Or have multiple different OSes emulated to do all kinds of pentesting.

    4. Finally start those Mastodon/Matrix/Lemmy/every other federated app instances that I've been right around the corner from hosting for ages

    5. media server

    6. Websites and web-apps, even if only locally served. Possibly have copies of wikipedia and archive.org and other highly usefulness-to-power-consumption ratio sites for when I eventually go off grid

    7. maybe email... maybe. I hear it's more of a headache than it's worth, though, so maybe not

    8. home IoT server. Handling all the functionalities so I don't have to stream security cam footage to some random company's untrustworthy server across however many hops along the way

    and probably a few other ideas i've had over the years that I can't think of at the moment.

    Could I accomplish all this on a couple powerful towers and a half dozen smaller/cheaper/more power efficient devices? Certainly, but this reduces cables, network overhead, and weird edge case problems having that many devices on a single-maintainer network causes. Instead of dealing with updating, upgrading, and hardening a dozen or more devices, this would give me a single point of failure that I can build resentments against whenver it has a hiccup.