I have been re-vamping my home network to try and keep things more logically, in particular separating multimedia from data such as spreadsheets, word documents, C# code etc.
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6 which used to feed my streaming box so I could watch videos on my TV. It might be more useful to use those SSDs elsewhere and put my 4 x 4TB Iron Wolf spinners in the NAS.
I now use my own server as network storage for my Nvidia TV Shield Pro so not using DNLA now, just a network attached drives.
Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be the limiting factor.
Many thanks.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives
the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at >writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive any two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any
one SSD failing or some combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all
know, RAID is not a ...
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
I have been re-vamping my home network to try and keep things more
logically, in particular separating multimedia from data such as spreadsheets, word documents, C# code etc.
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6 which used to feed my
streaming box so I could watch videos on my TV. It might be more useful
to use those SSDs elsewhere and put my 4 x 4TB Iron Wolf spinners in the
NAS.
I now use my own server as network storage for my Nvidia TV Shield Pro
so not using DNLA now, just a network attached drives.
Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a
NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be
the limiting factor.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives
the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive
any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as
we all know, RAID is not a ...
Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a
NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be
the limiting factor.
On 15/12/2024 in message <ls7mo8F2nccU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it
gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and
slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive any two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive
any one SSD failing or some combinations of two SSDs failing, but as
we all know, RAID is not a ...
Many thanks for all the replies, much appreciated :-)
It seems that I am more likely to get a catastrophic failure if I use
the same make/model of SSDs whereas using spinning drives I am more
likely to get warning between failure of individual drives. I accept
there are no absolutes, just likelihoods.
For my NAS I am more concerned with reliability and a higher likelihood
of recovering from a disk failure than speed and now I have re-vamped my setup it will be the last link in a chain of backups i.e. backup of last resort. I appreciate RAID is not a substitute for a backup but in this
case the NAS itself will be one of several local backups.
Still nothing off site, bit wary of the cloud since my password
spreadsheet was hacked from DropBox.
Thanks again.
On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
This is (unfortunately) not true.
The bricking policy is unrelated to SMART, in the sense
that Intel devices do not brick because the device state
is "poor".
They brick when exactly 600TBW has expired. No more or no less.
Once the average location receives 600 writes (or whatever the
technology indicates is the number of writes), the drive
just bricks. It does not even go read-only. It just... stops working.
This is why, as a consumer, you have to study which companies
have which policy.
Intel Device totally stops responding, after each cell written 600 times.
xxxxx Some companies, their drive goes read-only after 600 writes per cell.
This allows a final backup to be made, before retiring the device.
yyyyy And a few SSDs have no policy at all. You can use them until the
critical data corrupts (loss of map), or, there is some calamity
related to spared out blocks.
Some of these policies were tested a long time ago, in a
test series that bashed some drives continuously. And
one of the drives (one without an end of life policy), it
lasted about twice as long as predicted, and it corrupted
while in service.
On Sun, 12/15/2024 9:19 AM, Paul wrote:
On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
The deal is, once you start doing stuff like this, your name is ruined forever.
The only way you can redeem yourself, is to carefully document
for each model, what your policy is on end-of-life.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915515
Every time I read these threads the story changes.
There are also customer queries on the Intel forum you
can read, if you are bored and there are no stamps to collect.
Paul
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
600 writes is impossibly small
As SSDs have moved from SLC to MLC to TLC the number of write cycles has dropped and dropped, by an order of magnitude per generation, now we're
at QLC some only have an endurance of 100 writes per cell ... the only
thing that stops them dying as soon as you look at them is the increased capacity of the device.
600 writes is impossibly small
On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
This is (unfortunately) not true.
The bricking policy is unrelated to SMART, in the sense
that Intel devices do not brick because the device state
is "poor".
They brick when exactly 600TBW has expired. No more or no less.
Once the average location receives 600 writes (or whatever the
technology indicates is the number of writes), the drive
just bricks. It does not even go read-only. It just... stops working.
It seems that I am more likely to get a catastrophic failure if I use the same make/model of SSDs whereas using spinning drives I am more likely to
get warning between failure of individual drives. I accept there are no absolutes, just likelihoods.
Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a NAS?
I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be the limiting factor.
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
On 21 Dec 2024 at 13:06:45 GMT, "Raj Kundra" <raj@kundracomputers.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
Price me up 4x 14TB SSDs :D
Cheers - Jaimie
On 21/12/2024 in message <vk6eh4$1qn6$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:
On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
We're not all highly successful businessman millionaires Raj, spinners
were half the price of SSD last time I looked!
Happy Christmas & New Year to you and other members :-)
On 21/12/2024 14:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 21/12/2024 in message <vk6eh4$1qn6$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:Trust me, I did not mean it that way, I know Jamie likes cutting edge,
On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
four spinning HDDsman like you still uses them?
We're not all highly successful businessman millionaires Raj, spinners
were half the price of SSD last time I looked!
Happy Christmas & New Year to you and other members :-)
hence comment. Regarding me being millionaire, is just lie. I still got >couple of Microserver fitted with 4 x 4TB Spinners each, so way out dated >with technology. If not broken leave it alone.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 21:30:16 |
Calls: | 8,717 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 13,273 |
Messages: | 5,954,680 |