Chances are that it doesn’t work there either. What actually does the OC is the kernel; the GUIs merely write the desired values into the correct files in /sys.

Have you heard of peertube?

It’s slightly overkill for your purposes but it is basically a self-hosted Youtube with a similarly nice UI and everything.

If you talk about “a GUI for systemd”, you obviously mean its most central and defining component which is the service manager. I’m going to assume you’re arguing in bad faith from here on out because I consider that to be glaringly obvious.

systemd-boot still has no connection to systemd the service manager. It doesn’t even run at the same time. Anything concerning it is part of the static system configuration, not runtime state.
udevd doesn’t interact with it in any significant user-relevant way either and it too is mostly static system configuration state.

journald would be an obvious thing that you would want integrated into a systemd GUI but even that could theoretically be optional. Though it’d still be useful without, it would diminish the usefulness of the systemd GUI significantly IMHO.
It’s also not disparate at all as it provides information on the same set of services that systemd manages and i.e. systemctl has journald integration too. You use the exact same identifiers.

If you wanted a distro where everything is set up for you OOTB, not requiring tinkering, you should not have installed Arch mate.

As mentioned, those are entirely separate and even independent components.

Systemd (as in: pid1) only “manages” them insofar as that it controls their running processes just like any other service on your system.

systemd-boot doesn’t interact with systemd at all; it’s not even a Linux program.

The reason these components have “systemd” in their name is that these components are maintained by the same people as part of the greater systemd project. They have no further relation to systemd pid1 (the service manager).

Whoever told you otherwise milead you and likely had an agenda or was transitively mislead by someone who does. Please don’t spread disinformation further.

Without knowing what you’ll use it for, neither.

Both don’t sound ideal though w.r.t. power consumption.

All of those are entirely separate components; I have no idea what you’re attempting to imply here.

For anyone else reading along: This person is talking out of their ass.

That should be our new slogan:

NixOS: Your Emacs’ bootloader.

LACT and Mangohud can do that pretty well

This is a configuration declaration abstraction issue. Systemd timers and services are more like primitives.

In NixOS, we have an abstraction that allows simple declaration of a service and timer that runs some script.

As an example, I use this to export my paperless for backup daily in a way that is safe (paperless itself cannot run during that time, guaranteed by systemd) and simple:

https://github.com/Atemu/nixos-config/blob/ca0d39eb98c62424208487f973573478268048b4/modules/paperless/module.nix#L59-L95

(Even without NixOS domain knowledge you should be able to follow what’s going on here.)

All that’s needed in order to cause a systemd timer to be created for this service is to declare the startAt = "daily"; at the bottom.

LACT. Though I don’t know if it can OC Nvidia, Nvidia support is quite new.

If only there was a place where it’s written down what he did? Commenters have yet to discover this mystical record.

Oh absolutely; I would never advocate against verifying your data’s integrity.

I think I’d split that into two machines; a low power 24/7 server and a on-demand gaming machine. Performance and power savings don’t go well together; high performance machines usually have quite high idle power consumption.

It’d also be more resilient; if you mess up your server, it won’t take your gaming machine with it and vice versa.

putting all the components together to be a step up in complexity too, when compared to going pre-built. For someone who is comfortable with building their own PC I would definitely recommend doing that

I’d recommend that to someone who doesn’t know how to build a PC because everyone should learn how to do it and doing it for the first time with low-cost and/or used hardware won’t cause a great financial loss should you mess up.

Interesting. I suspect you must either have had really bad luck or be using faulty hardware.

In my broad summarising estimate, I only accounted for relatively modern disks like something made in the past 5 years or so. Drives from the 2000s or early 2010s could be significantly worse and I wouldn’t be surprised. It sounds like to me your experience was with drives that are well over a decade old at this point.

JBOD is not the same as RAID0

As far as data security is concerned, JBOD/linear combination and RAID0 are the same

With RAID0, you always need the disks in sync because reads need to alternate. With JBOD, as long as your reads are distributed, only one disk at a time needs to be active for a given read and you can benefit from simultaneous reads on different disks

RAID0 will always have the performance characteristics of the slowest disk times the stripe width.

JBOD will have performance depending on the disk currently used. With sufficient load, it could theoretically max out all disks at once but that’s extremely unlikely and, with that kind of load, you’d necessarily have a queue so deep that latency shoots to the moon; resulting in an unusable system.
Most importantly of all however is that you cannot control which device is used. This means you cannot rely on getting better perf than the slowest device because, with any IO operation, you might just hit the slowest device instead of the more performant drives and there’s no way to predict which you’ll get.
It goes further too because any given application is unlikely to have a workload that even distributes over all disks. In a classical JBOD, you’d need a working set of data that is greater than the size of the individual disks (which is highly unlikely) or lots of fragmentation (you really don’t want that). This means the perf that you can actually rely on getting in a JBOD is the perf of the slowest disk, regardless of how many disks there are.

Perf of slowest disk * number of disks > Perf of slowest disk.

QED.

You also assume that disk speeds are somehow vastly different whereas in reality, most modern hard drives perform very similarly.
Also nobody in their right mind would design a system that groups together disks with vastly different performance characteristics when performance is of any importance.

Soft wrapping plain-text is surprisingly hard to get right. It’s better to just hard wrap your text when writing an email. Any half-decent text editor/mail client has a feature to automatically hard-wrap a paragraph for you for convenience.

Personally I went with an ITX build where I run everything in a Debian KVM/qemu host, including my fedora workstation as a vm with vfio passthrough of a usb controller and the dgpu. It was a lot of fun setting it up, but nothing I’d recommend for someone needing advice for their first homelab.

I feel like that has more to do with the complexity of solving your use-case in software rather than anything to do with the hardware. It’d be just as hard on a pre-built NAS as on a DIY build; though perhaps even worse on the pre-built due to shitty OS software.

Your currently stated requirements would be fulfilled by anything with a general-purpose CPU made in the last decade and 2-4GB RAM. You could use almost literally anything that looks like a computer and isn’t ancient.

You’re going to need to go into more detail to get any advice worth following here.

What home servers differ most in is storage capacity, compute power and of course cost.

• Do you plan on running any services that require significant compute power?
• How much storage do you need?
• How much do you want it to cost to purchase?
• How much do you want it to cost to running?

Most home server services aren’t very heavy. I have like 8 of them running on my home server and it idles with next to no CPU utilisation.

For me, I can only see myself needing ~dozens of TiB and don’t forsee needing any services that require significant compute.

My home server is an 4 core 2.2GHz Intel J4105 single-board computer (mATX) in a super cheap small PC tower case that has space for a handful of hard drives. I’d estimate something on this order is more than enough for 90% of people’s home server needs. Unless you have specific needs where you know it’ll need significant compute power, it’s likely enough for you too.

It needs about 10-20W at idle which is about 30-60€ per year in energy costs.

I’ve already seen pre-built NAS with fancy hot-swap bays recommended here (without even asking what you even need of it, great). I think those are generally a waste of money because you easily can build a low-power PC for super cheap yourself and you don’t need to swap drives all that often in practice. The 1-2 times per decade where you actually need to do anything to your hard drives, you can open a panel, unplug two cables and unscrew 4 screws; it’s not that hard.

Someone will likely also recommend buying some old server but those are loud and draw so much power that you could buy multiple low power PCs every year for the electricity cost alone. Oh and did I mention they’re loud?