Trying to make a low power server and need disks to sleep

[djon 16]

Hi, I am trying to reduce power on my Windows 10 server and have tested using a USB drive that, when sleeping only uses 0,8w. However when I set up an Emby library on the disk, it never seems to sleep unless I disable realtime monitoring. I guess that that makes sense if Emby polls the folders every minute or less, preventing the disk from sleeping? Is that what's happening?

Would the results be the same on a Synology NAS with Emby installed?

Is it better to set up some scheduled monitoring of the libraries instead?

 

[GrimReaper 4742]

"Best" would be never to let those drives sleep/spin-down at all. 

[djon 16]

That somehow interferes with the low power thing

[GrimReaper 4742]

That was "better" solution, as for "more economic", that would depend what kind of data you would keep on that external drive: media only or some other, and number, type and frequency of Emby tasks you have set (i.e. how often system need to access that drive with no ongoing streams). For example, my external (WD) drive (media-only drive for portable Emby server) would go to sleep quite agressively whether I was not deliberately having a 1-minute write to keep it spinning, so basic Emby setup should not prevent it from going to sleep. 

Edit: As for Synology, @cayars and @FrostByte might have more insight.

Edited November 22, 2021 by GrimReaper
Append

[FrostByte 5392]

Things like RTM, debugging enabled, DLNA, etc did cause my Synology not to go to sleep.  I've changed mine so that it's scheduled to sleep/wake at certain times now though so it's always available when I want it during the day

[djon 16]

I made an Emby library for TV shows on a USB disk and enabled real-time monitoring. It never went to sleep. Then I disabled real-time monitoring and it went to sleep. Is that normal behavior? 

Doesn't real-time monitoring mean that it checks the folders all the time? That would prevent a disk from sleeping wouldn't It? 

Edited November 22, 2021 by djon

[GrimReaper 4742]

I would assume RTM doesn't scan anything, but listens and is notified at system level by FileSystemWatcher (or equivalent) under Windows, but @Happy2Play or one of the Devs might shed some light there. 

[ebr 16185]

15 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I would assume RTM doesn't scan anything, but listens and is notified at system level by FileSystemWatcher (or equivalent) under Windows, but @Happy2Play or one of the Devs might shed some light there. 

That is correct but there could be situations where changes in another area are causing a scan which then keeps your drives from sleeping.

[rbjtech 5284]

Somebody needs to make a 'dual speed' HDD that slows down the spin, thus saving power, but still keeps the disk 'alive'.  On access, this will bring the HDD back up to full speed again - this should also rapidly increase the 'start up time' of the HDD and reduce the thermal shock/wear etc to a minimum...  

[Painkiller88 250]

4 hours ago, djon said:

That somehow interferes with the low power thing

not really. You can use a Synology NAS as your server, or an Intel NUC like i do.

Both are low powered in comparison to a normal win 10 tower or something else.

Most people have a lot of movies so a NAS like QNAP or Synology is already in use. If the performance of these devices is enough for you, this would be an option.

If you need more performance take an Intel NUC with an SSD or M.2 disk and you have your low powered device, even if the NAS or NUC is 24/7 up what is recommended for a NAS

Edited November 22, 2021 by Painkiller8818

[djon 16]

I am looking at a low power NUC-like PC with an m2 ssd. This only uses around 4 w. But just one 3,5" inch disk connected to a USB port uses 7-8w when running. Some, like my WD Book however only use 0,8w when sleeping. Problem is just it never seems to go to sleep when an Emby library with RTM is created on there. 

Also considering adding a 4tb 2,5" SSD but they are crazy expensive, but I need at least that much space for my media. 

Might seem like a bizarre issue for some places in the world but in my country power prices have exploded, so coming from my current 30w server, a 5w server would save me something like $80 a year. 

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

Before worrying about or allowing disks to sleep you need to investigate to see just how much energy will be saved and look into the wear and tear of spin up/down cycles and how much starting and stopping will reduce drive life.

I have not looked into this for quite a wile but the last time I did it turned out that it actually cost a lot more to allow drives to sleep than it did to just keep them running and the reduced access caused by waiting for drives to spin up caused inconveniences for server access that were, to me, not even near worth the marginal savings of even allowing the whole serving computer to sleep.

Things may have changed in the last few years but it still seems counter productive to allow servers, either drives or the whole thing, to sleep.

I have 13 external drives connected to my server and, at last test, keeping them on all the time only cost about the same as a 15 watt light bulb (Incandescent) burning all the time. A very tiny cost with the advantage that you never have to worry about access.

It is my belief that servers should never sleep and that even fancy WOL settings or other energy "saving" do not mitigate the problems. My neighbors do not even run any computer systems at all, basically they have a house that thinks it is 1960 or so. Their power bills are about where mine are. I run about $5.00 to $10.00 more than theirs. The only time my bill jumps above theirs by a good margin is in the hottest months as I like it cooler and so my air conditioning run a bit more.

BTW: My server is simply a top end computer from about 10 years ago and I never shut it off.

But you need to make your own choices. I just wanted to indicate that there were other considerations that might effect decisions.

BTW: In the fall/winter/early spring I move my server to my main living area so it can help keep the area warm.

[Painkiller88 250]

54 minutes ago, djon said:

Problem is just it never seems to go to sleep when an Emby library with RTM is created on there.

Is there any reason why you really want RTM to be enabled?

I have disabled it as i know, when i add some stuff and as i want to check the images and maybe change the covers and fanart, i don't wanna have RTM enabled.

This would solve your problem.

[djon 16]

1 hour ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

Before worrying about or allowing disks to sleep you need to investigate to see just how much energy will be saved and look into the wear and tear of spin up/down cycles and how much starting and stopping will reduce drive life.

I have not looked into this for quite a wile but the last time I did it turned out that it actually cost a lot more to allow drives to sleep than it did to just keep them running and the reduced access caused by waiting for drives to spin up caused inconveniences for server access that were, to me, not even near worth the marginal savings of even allowing the whole serving computer to sleep.

Things may have changed in the last few years but it still seems counter productive to allow servers, either drives or the whole thing, to sleep.

I have 13 external drives connected to my server and, at last test, keeping them on all the time only cost about the same as a 15 watt light bulb (Incandescent) burning all the time. A very tiny cost with the advantage that you never have to worry about access.

It is my belief that servers should never sleep and that even fancy WOL settings or other energy "saving" do not mitigate the problems. My neighbors do not even run any computer systems at all, basically they have a house that thinks it is 1960 or so. Their power bills are about where mine are. I run about $5.00 to $10.00 more than theirs. The only time my bill jumps above theirs by a good margin is in the hottest months as I like it cooler and so my air conditioning run a bit more.

BTW: My server is simply a top end computer from about 10 years ago and I never shut it off.

But you need to make your own choices. I just wanted to indicate that there were other considerations that might effect decisions.

BTW: In the fall/winter/early spring I move my server to my main living area so it can help keep the area warm.

As stated earlier I live in Europe and we probably pay ten times that you do for electricity. Also there is no way an old server with 13 attached drives doesn't use at least 100w, which would cost me around $300 a year. Just one 3,5" disk uses at least 7w if it doesn't sleep.

But yes the time for a disk to spin up before a movie starts might be a pain, making my idea a no-go. Must test this more.

[Carlo 4561]

Don't forget the wear and tear on drives from starting/stopping.  It's probably the number one killer of drives especially with multiple drives in the case.
I don't allow any of my drives to sleep.

Today's drives are a lot better then they used to be (look at them wrong and they fail) so maybe it's just an old habit on my part, but I can't stand waiting so it works out.

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

45 minutes ago, cayars said:

Today's drives are a lot better then they used to be (look at them wrong and they fail) so maybe it's just an old habit on my part, but I can't stand waiting so it works out.

I believe that sentence does not say what you intended it to say. The way it is structured the parenthetical modifier seems to be modifying "today's drives" while I think you intended to modify "they used to be." That I think is you intended to say "Today's drives are a lot better than they used to be (look at the older drives wrong and they fail) so maybe it's just an old habit on my part, but I can't stand waiting so it works out."

I am not the grammar police at all. I almost never correct the chronic misuse of there, their and they're or most other language flubs we see on the internet as mostly the meaning does not get confused but I agree with your point and wanted to make sure it was understood correctly. Of course I could be wrong and you really meant to say that the newer drives fail quite easily. But I really doubt that was you intention.

Please forgive me if I produced more confusion than I solved.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Gilgamesh_48

[Carlo 4561]

Me thinks you ain't wrong. LOL