Anyone interested in splitting a Hetzner SX server?
Just wanted to check in case anyone here is interested in splitting an SX63 server at actuals?
Would have gone for one alone, but I would never be able to use the entire storage space. So, decided to ask around, before biting the bullet.
In case someone comes on board, I will carve out a couple of KVM containers with all resources split evenly.
SX63 Specs:
- Intel® Xeon® E3-1275 v5
- 64 GB DDR4 ECC
- 4 x 16 TB SATA 6 Gb/s 7200 rpm
- 1 Gbit/s-Port
- Location: FSN1
Cost:
- €83 (One-time setup) + €83 / Mo split 2 ways.
This will be a long term arrangement. So, I would prefer to share the server with folks who have been around these parts for a while 
Also open to splitting an SX133 server for that beefy processor and NVMe goodness, if someone is interested. It would allow me to decommission a couple of older Intel Boxes and move things over to a single beefy server for easier management.
Plenty of resources to go around, on production grade hardware.
SX133 Specs:
- Intel® Xeon® W-2145
- 128 GB DDR4 ECC
- 2 x 960 GB NVMe SSD
- 10 x 16 TB SATA 6 Gb/s 7200 rpm
- 1 Gbit/s-Port
- Location: FSN1
Cost:
- €203 (One-time setup) + €203 / Mo split 2 ways.
Comments
I already have both of them. Serveres Are alright
You can learn from @Not_Oles , use LXC, and start
MetalStorage.com.Haha, not looking to become a provider.
This is just a one off thing to get some cheap storage, while monetizing the excess resources that I won't use
Umm, they advertise V5 cpu on the 4 hdd version, i got a V6 (Finland).
How much servers do you have? I saw you also have that beefy storage server. Total costs each month is close to 750 for the 3 of them?
I have quite a few. However, i still need a couple more
Sure, count me in. I can use some
, but I will only use like 10 TB for now, so I assume you would need someone else too.
For me, the disk performance needs to be good, so please make sure nobody hogs the disk and causes crazy iowait (as long as this is < 10%, I'm all set!).
For an SX63, I'd suggest Proxmox in ZFS raidz1.
TensorDock: Hourly Cloud GPUs from $0.32/hour
This was simply going to host non critical data, such as back-ups, data dumps etc. To maximize disk space and performance, i was looking at using RAID0. FWIW, the Helium filled 16T drives are fairly reliable - https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-for-2020/
@K4Y5 sure, sounds good. RAID 0 works for me. One quick thing -- will you be paying VAT? That's like an extra 20% cost.
TensorDock: Hourly Cloud GPUs from $0.32/hour
Yep, prices are including VAT.
Not trying to capture a thread here, but i already have a idling sx133 im going to start using now. You are both welcome to pm me
Raid0 with 10 disks, really? I'm shocked. You should at least do raid5 which is already bad enough but I wouldn't sleep with raid0.
Imagine needing to refill 160 TB when one drive fails, ouch.
Personally Ill run raid 5 on mine. If im sharing with someone, Ill just create some VMs and pass through disks and let the user do whatever he wants with them
This Are supposed to be decent disks, so og backups is the only thing you need to run it is probably fine for years
Obviously talking about sx63 here. Smh.
I'd be terrified of raid 0. Better no raid at all. You don't get that striping speedup, but at least if 1 drive fails the other 3 are intact. I'd be interested in somewhat less than half of an sx63. More like 1/8, but hmm maybe could think about 1/2 so would have space to spare. How would cpu be apportioned? I'd want to run some high-cpu tasks some of the time, not constantly, but occasionally multi-day.
I was basically looking at RAID0 to maximize storage space as well as R/W performance on SX63, since this box is just meant to store non critical data (data sets, VM snapshots, app / db backups etc) - basically, nothing that would cost you billions in event of a drive failure.
As for the CPU usage, you'd be able to use 100% of your share of resources allocated to your VM, however you wish.
If it's cold storage anyway you wouldn't need the performance of RAID0. RAID5 would be sufficient and then at least you can lose one disk. It will cost you 16 TB for sure but on a total of 160 TB that's not a lot. I would probably go with ZFS RAIDZ1.
We are talking about SX63 in this post, It has FOUR HDDs and not 10.
Aaah ok indeed I was refering to the 10x16 TB.
WIth the 10 drive box use raid 6. Thing is with raid0 on 4 drives there is almost a guaranteed eventual fail losing the whole thing instead of just 1/4 of it. How active a server are you planning to make this? The disk bandwidth shouldn't really matter if it's primarily for backups. Transfers will be limited by the network speed, which will be far slower than the disks. Speaking of which maybe you want the 10gb/s port add-on depending on its cost.