Like a lot of geeks, I used to have a dedicated Linux box running 24×7 as a home server. In the days of relatively cheap electricity and very expensive online storage years ago, this seemed like a good idea. Today, however, electricity is expensive, online storage (like Amazon S3 or Carbonite) is cheap, and broadband access can be had by either wired or wireless services. Is the idea of an always-on home server (like the Microsoft Windows Home Server) or consumer NAS (network attached server) boxes now a bad idea from an electricity cost point of view?
Is a Home Server a Bad Idea?
July 16th, 2008 | Green Technology
2 comments ↓
It seems that if you don’t have much data to store ( 200 GB then you’re going to start getting into a pricey range. Over time it’s going to cost more for the storage on S3 than owning the NAS or Server and electricity. At least that’s the way it seems to me.
I think you may also have to consider how much you use the data. If you have a lot of I/O then with S3 you’re going to run into a lot of bandwidth charges. In the end I don’t think that there’s a one size fits all solution. Everybody has to decide what works best for them.
ah… I see you’re filtering HTML. That should be less than 200 GB in the parenthesis above.
Leave a Comment