• IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    More reliable, less power draw than HDDs, faster and far more space efficient.

    Unless you are data hoarding random torrents, 6 to 12 TB is plenty.

    • adoxographer@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Are they really more reliable than NAS “grade” HDD - and a ssd cache? I always saw SSD with a max write on them, and a NAS does plenty of I/O.

      Admittedly I’ve never had an SSD go bad in my computers, but for some reason I never considered them as a good enough alternative for a NAS.

      Are there any data you know of the top of your head before I go searching?

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Anecdata, but SSDs will last longer than you want to use them in terms of write endurance.

        My NAS OS SSDs are 500gb hynix drives from about 8 years ago, and they’re pushing 150 TBW.

        150TB is a LOT of write cycles on a small drive, and they’re still reporting 94% endurance remaining.

        The controller will die or I’ll upgrade well before that breaks at the rate it’s going.

        Also keep in mind that you can read flash all you want and that doesn’t wear anything (unlike a HDD, amusingly), so for most consumer use cases, they’ll load the drive up with their data, and then only slowly modify or add to it, but have lots and lots of read access.

        • adoxographer@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I hadn’t considered that, it makes all the sense of course, as a NAS, even when torrenting with cache enabled, will give an SSD less wear and tear than an HDD.

          It comes down to price vs everything else

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        If you use a NAS for file storage it really does not do extreme amounts of IO. Similar to a desktop SSD.

        There are torrent freaks out there who really need that price performance fix for everyone else SSDs are fine. Always run them in RAID anyway for redundancy and get TLC storage not QLC.

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      More reliable

      Heavily depends. If you want to use it as long-term cold storage you absolutely should not use SSDs, they’re losing data when left unpowered for too long. While HDDs are also not perfect in retaining data forever, they won’t fail as quickly when left on a shelf.

      • stetech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Good and true point, but arguably most NASs are built to be used, not to be not-used…

        • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Well, they arguably can also be used as one big long-term storage. Not sure who’d need to save so much data for a long time, but there surely will be at least some people who do and buy the “modern solution” over old HDDs thinking they’re better in general. As the “family backup” for example, or as cold storage solution in faculties that can be quickly accessed if needed.

          Read somewhere about a professor who used SSDs to “permanently” store important data on SSDs (perhaps in the comments of the article above) for a few years. Well, wasn’t that permanent…