• NAS Speed SSD -v- Spinners

    From Jeff Gaines@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 14 22:25:19 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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 Dorset UK
    You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Sun Dec 15 00:41:16 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On Sat, 12/14/2024 5:25 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:

    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.


    Hard drives take longer to come out of sleep.

    Hard drives have uncorrelated failures. This means building
    a RAID array with them, without thinking about details, is the
    correct thing to do. when one drive fails, you'll go to Degrade
    state and deal with it. It could be many days before a second
    drive would fail. The second drive does not "sense" that the
    first drive failed. One drive could fail at 5000 hours, the second
    drive at 55000 hours. These are uncorrelated.

    SSDs on the other hand, have correlated failures. A worst case
    would have been, if you selected four Intel 2TB drives. Intel
    brick both reads and writes at end of life (at 1200 TBW). The
    array can go through both Degrade and Fail status the same day,
    because all four of the Intel drives could receive the
    same number of writes, and their "computed service life behavior"
    on all four units will be the same. Their failures will cluster
    at end of life.

    If you use four identical SSDs from a product line that does not
    brick reads or writes at end of life, that is better. They will
    blow errors. They will corrupt data. But they will not go through
    Degrade and Fail on the same day while you're away on a jolly.

    You can mix SSDs together. Install an Intel 2TB, a Kingston 2TB,
    a Samsung 2TB, a TeamGroup 2TB and those will fail differently.

    If a NAS is actually designed for SSD usage, it will be reading
    the SMART table from each drive, once a day, and using the
    computed end of life to give warnings to the user ("drive 4 has
    23 days remaining"). Maybe if 5% of device life is present, it
    will be giving alerts to make frequent backups, and/or change
    out unit, before the array goes down the toilet.

    Summary: For SSDs, either the user provides the service intelligence,
    or the NAS does. For HDD, the normal assumptions of uncorrelated
    failure are met, and maintenance states are normal and expected
    degrades, with sufficient time to go from degrade back to normal.

    HDD are a little slower at returning to service after a nap.
    They can use more power. SSDs can be slower to come out of sleep
    than you might think, but the HDD is a lot slower by comparison.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Gaines@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 15 10:09:35 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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.

    --
    Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Burns@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Sun Dec 15 09:44:37 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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 ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Rumm@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Sun Dec 15 12:42:21 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/12/2024 22:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:

    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.

    Much depends on your application. For things like streaming video
    content, you are not going to see any practical difference - fast enough
    is good enough. If you are running other servers on the NAS that can
    benefit from very fast random access times (DB server, or VM virtual
    drive hosting) then you should see and improvement with SSD even if the
    network bandwidth limits the ultimate max throughput.

    Does your QNAP have multiple ethernet ports? If so it likely supports
    link aggregation when connected to a switch capable of doing that. That
    can remove some of the network bandwidth limit in the sense that any
    single gigabit connected device will still max out at ~100MBs, but it
    can cope with multiple clients in parallel at an aggregate total
    throughput exceeding any one gig ethernet link.

    (I run a mixture of IronWolf and IronWolf pro drives in mine after
    having the original batch of WD "Red" drives fail at various points. I
    have never really found performance a problem - but I don't thrash it
    that hard. I do use link aggregation with its 4 gig ethernet ports though).

    --
    Cheers,

    John.

    /=================================================================\
    | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
    | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \=================================================================/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Andy Burns on Sun Dec 15 13:35:55 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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.
    Cells do not instantly die at an arbitrary point, they degrade over
    time and eventually reach a threshold where the error correction can no
    longer cope


    And if you cared enough you would monitor the SSD using SMART and
    replace your drives the moment one of them started dumping blocks as
    unusable

    e.g.,,,

    ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
    UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age
    Always - 0
    5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age
    Always - 0
    9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age
    Always - 27441
    12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age
    Always - 118
    160 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    161 Unknown_Attribute 0x0033 100 100 050 Pre-fail Always
    - 100
    163 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 8
    164 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 85154
    165 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 326
    166 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 150
    167 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 172
    168 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 7000
    169 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 98
    175 Program_Fail_Count_Chip 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    176 Erase_Fail_Count_Chip 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    178 Used_Rsvd_Blk_Cnt_Chip 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    181 Program_Fail_Cnt_Total 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    182 Erase_Fail_Count_Total 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 56
    194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 40
    195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 1406121
    196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 0
    232 Available_Reservd_Space 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 100
    241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0030 100 100 050 Old_age
    Offline - 290950
    242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0030 100 100 050 Old_age
    Offline - 58331
    245 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always
    - 426654

    You can monitors things like Raw_Read_Error_Rate and
    Reallocated_Sector_Ct and if they start to show any activity at all,
    replace the drive, Or wait till they get sufficiently high that you get worried.

    There is more in there too - UDMA_CRC_Error_Count means a data sector
    needed the CR to correct the data, and Available_Reservd_Space is spare
    memeory to use to replace bad blocks

    It not simple 'times up. i'm dead'

    I look at my drives every so often to see what's what. SSDS I now have
    have been replaced not because they went bad but becuse the motherboards
    in the machines they were in died, a far more serious problem that an uncorrectable block error in an SSD.



    --
    All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
    all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
    fully understood.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Sun Dec 15 13:19:34 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14/12/2024 22:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
    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.

    Yes. But it does depend on network speed.

    If you have a 1Gb/s transfer rate, that is a bit less than e.g, a SATA
    spinning rust drive BUT....

    ...NOT if you are looking at random seeks.

    The SSD scores because the seek time is essentially irrelevantly low.

    And people are now looking at faster Ethernet. 10Gb/s is not unheard of
    and higher exists

    And that really would benefit from modern SSDs that don't use SATA

    Now I do not expect speed from my NAS. Its there to store data, not load programs from.
    As long is it can support video streaming I'm ok with that

    Your mileage may vary.


    --
    New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
    the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
    someone else's pocket.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Sun Dec 15 13:47:00 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/12/2024 10:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
    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.

    You have been misinformed. Research the topic online if you dont believe me.

    SSD failures are down to gradual doping migrations that affect the
    ability of the cells to retain data, This is a function of the actual
    silicon quality the temperature and how often they have been used.

    And in a twin disk setup unless you are using pure mirroring that will
    not be the same for either disk

    Essentially given you get past the 'manufacturing fault' early stage,
    SSDs show the normal gradually rising error rates with age and use and temnperature that any electronics does, and they are built to deal with
    that by error correction and moving bad blocks out of the way and using
    new ones

    It is all recorded on the drive and is all accessible bia SMART


    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.


    Simply back one disk up to the other every night. RAIDS is pointless.
    RAIDS is about speed and accessibility - not backup


    If the backup dies, simply put in a new one
    If the primary dies, put in a new one and restiore from the second. You
    lose (up to) 24 hours of data but that us better than losing all of it


    Still nothing off site, bit wary of the cloud since my password
    spreadsheet was hacked from DropBox.

    Build yourself a fireproof box and pout it in there.,

    Frankly, if my house catches fire, my personal data is not the first of
    my concerns. Although I probably would grab the server and race outside
    with it



    Thanks again.


    --
    New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
    the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
    someone else's pocket.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to Paul on Sun Dec 15 09:59:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Dec 15 09:19:00 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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.

    If a NAS is not prepared to monitor the hardware properly,
    then the user had better be aware of this sort of issue,
    and check the SMART values once in a great while. Move a drive over
    to another machine, a machine that won't "hurt" the drive, and
    check out the SSD portion of the statistics.

    for desktop users, you can get the manufacturer "TookKit" and install
    that, and it reads the SMART once a day, records the Total LBA Written
    value. It works out the delta, and from that, computes how many
    more years the drive will last, at that rate of consumption. That's
    an example of a derived statistic you can get, without becoming
    a SMART table expert. Not all the ToolKits are worth installing,
    but a few of them are good.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Paul on Sun Dec 15 16:12:42 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/12/2024 14:19, 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.

    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.

    No any ones I have heard of


    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.

    I do not believe anyone has that policy today, and 600 writes is
    impossibly small

    E.g. Kingston quote lifetime not in writes, but in hours with an MTBF
    which simply does not suggest an exact cut off....


    "Nevertheless: The flash cells, which electronically store data onto an
    SSD device, have a clearly defined life span, in contrast to traditional magnetic storage devices. After a limited number of write-erase cycles,
    this becomes critical, since the flash memory of an SSD ages with every
    write process. Manufacturers usually state 1,000 to 100,000
    write-and-erase operations.

    The considerable range in the lifetime of an SSD is related to different storage technologies:

    - Single-level cell SSDs (SLC) have a particularly long life,
    although they can only store 1 bit per memory cell. They can withstand
    up to 100,000 write cycles per cell and are particularly fast, durable,
    and fail-safe.

    - Multi-level cell SSDs (MLC) have a higher storage density and can
    store 2 bits per flash cell. They are more cost-effective than the SLC
    type but can only tolerate up to 10,000 write cycles per cell.

    - Triple-level cell SSDs (TLC) can hold 3 information bits per memory
    cell. However, at the same time, life expectancy can drop to 3,000
    memory cycles per cell.

    - Quad-level cell SSDs (QLC) accommodate 4 information bits per
    cell. Reduced costs, more storage capacity, and higher storage density
    are also associated with a shorter service life with this type of
    device. Manufacturers usually only guarantee 1,000 write or erase cycles
    per cell.

    Although the range in SSD life spans is considerable, all SSD types have
    a sufficiently high life expectancy with moderate use (with some
    limitations, including for QLC SSDs)."

    https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/server/security/ssd-life-span/

    So no absolute sudden bricking, just data degradation, followed by
    remapping of 'bad blocks' and finally drive failure.

    And if you don't get greedy on storage space, up to 100,000 write
    operations. Or more.

    IBM may have had some policy once, but it is in no way representative of
    drives on sale today.

    If the drive is big and the data write rate slow, as is typical in a
    domestic NAS, the things should do 10+ years.

    Which is better than most hard drives.

    I have a friend who used to burn those out in under a year. 24x7 massive
    data files being written and read.
    Doing some kind of numerical analysis



    --
    "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
    This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
    all women"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Paul on Sun Dec 15 16:16:22 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/12/2024 14:59, Paul wrote:
    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.

    Yes, yours is

    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

    Oh dear, a thread relating to an IBM drive 8 years ago?

    And you are still touting this as 'expert knowledge'

    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.


    I don't give a shit what is on Intel forums 8 years ago I care what is
    common knowledge on drives available today. As produced by manufacturers.

    I've shown you evidence that what you say is bollocks,. Apologize, and
    move on


    Paul


    --
    "Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
    "What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

    "Jeremy Corbyn?"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Natural Philosopher@21:1/5 to Andy Burns on Sun Dec 15 18:07:13 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15/12/2024 18:01, Andy Burns wrote:
    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.

    No they haven't dropped that far. Even for QLC


    And if you are buying QLC for a NAS you need your head examining anyway.

    --
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
    returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

    Mark Twain

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Burns@21:1/5 to The Natural Philosopher on Sun Dec 15 18:01:38 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pancho@21:1/5 to Paul on Sun Dec 15 19:58:39 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 12/15/24 14:19, 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.

    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.


    I have an Intel SSD with writes greater than 600 times capacity. It
    works fine. It is quite old as SSDs go. Actually it is just plain old as anything PC goes, but it still works fine.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jaimie Vandenbergh@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 17 11:53:44 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 15 Dec 2024 at 10:09:35 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    RAID gives you continuity, you can carry on using the NAS while sourcing+installing a replacement drive.

    Only backup gives you a backup.

    If you have 4x4Tb in a raid5ish config, then I'd suggest getting a 12tb
    USB drive to backup to. raid6? Get an 8tb.

    Cheers - Jaimie
    --
    "Don't let nouns get in the way of a good time"
    -- Jasper Fforde

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jaimie Vandenbergh@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 17 11:52:08 2024
    XPost: uk.d-i-y

    On 14 Dec 2024 at 22:25:19 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
    wrote:

    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.

    There is not. Network speed is the limiting factor.

    My NAS has 10gigE and can fill 900meg/second from four spinning HDDs.

    Cheers - Jaimie
    --
    You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you
    can't /really/ get a leopard to appreciate the notion that
    it has spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard,
    but it will just sit there looking at you, knowing that
    you are made of meat.
    After a while it will perhaps kill you. -- Geoffrey Pullum

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raj Kundra@21:1/5 to Jaimie Vandenbergh on Sat Dec 21 13:06:45 2024
    On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
    four spinning HDDs
    man like you still uses them?

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Gaines@21:1/5 to Raj Kundra on Sat Dec 21 14:04:40 2024
    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 HDDs
    man 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 :-)

    --
    Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
    The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jaimie Vandenbergh@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 21 16:48:46 2024
    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 HDDs
    man like you still uses them?

    Price me up 4x 14TB SSDs :D

    Cheers - Jaimie

    --
    Remember, if something is on the news that means
    it's rare enough that you shouldn't worry about it.
    It's the things that _don't_ make the news due to
    being so common that you should worry about.
    -- Stephen Sprunk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raj Kundra@21:1/5 to Jaimie Vandenbergh on Wed Dec 25 08:42:49 2024
    On 21/12/2024 16:48, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
    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 HDDs
    man like you still uses them?

    Price me up 4x 14TB SSDs :D

    Cheers - Jaimie

    I have no idea they make 14TB SSD nnow, sorry.
    Still stuck with 4TB units.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Raj Kundra@21:1/5 to Jeff Gaines on Wed Dec 25 13:00:06 2024
    On 21/12/2024 14:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
    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 HDDs
    man 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 :-)

    Trust me, I did not mean it that way, I know Jamie likes cutting edge,
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Gaines@21:1/5 to Raj Kundra on Wed Dec 25 16:07:01 2024
    On 25/12/2024 in message <vkgvkm$2ddee$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:

    On 21/12/2024 14:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
    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 HDDs
    man 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 :-)

    Trust me, I did not mean it that way, I know Jamie likes cutting edge,
    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.

    So have I! Fabulous bits of kit, one runs Linux, specifically Brasero to
    create DVD iso's, and the other had 4 x Iron Wolf 4 TB spinners (half the
    price of SSDs as backup).

    In the last few days I have moved them to my Z170K which now acts as a
    media server, 12 TB of SSD/NVMe and 16 TB of spinners!

    --
    Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
    The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not
    expect to sit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)