Buy a bunch of these shit 8 TB SSDs and put them in RAIDZ2 to get a silent NAS with lots of capacity while being protected against failure of up to 2 drives. Good or bad idea?
>>106511354Hard drives are silent if you soft mount them.
>>106511354you should fuck your sister
It'd be expensive but it'd work. 2 drive redundancy is fine if failures are random.Mmost sane people buy cheaper storage and just move the box to somewhere they don't care about noise.
>>106511411Most cases do not support this.
>>106511411chat, is this true?
>>106511437no
>>106511437maybe
>>106511354Won't that kill the drives rather quickly?
>>106511508Because of CoW write amplification? I thought that's not much of an issue if you're not running at 90%+ capacity at all times.
>>106511549But they're shitty consumer TLC/QLC drives with abysmal TBW. Don't imagine they last very long when using ZFS.
>>106511549You will not see an ssd hit its write limit in your lifetime.
>>106511567Oh yeah, I know they're shit QLC drives, that's why I said RAIDZ2. So I can play the drive lifetime lottery safely. If they last a long time then great, if they fail surprisingly quickly then it's only a minor issue.
>>106511354for silent you can go with 5400 drives, possibly helium on top of that
>>106511437only if its not seagate
>>106511354>Buy a bunch of these shit 8 TB SSDs>QLCDepends on the workloadI use 4TB TLC in my NAS, and am goin to NVME
>>106511354Since they're QLC I'd unironically go with RAIDZ3. I have had very bad failure rates with QLCs even with low weekly write rates. 50-150GB / week at most for about half a year before three drives in an eight drive array shit the bed within two days of each other. Then another double failure almost simultaneously two weeks later, dropped out just minutes apart according to the logs. All Samsung too which used to be extremely reliable in my experience but their QLC ones are dogshit apparently. And yes I did buy those in two batches from different vendors so this kind of shit wouldn't happen.
>>106512302At that point I would be suspect of whatever was powering them.
>>106511354ZFS will rape that drive within a year.
>>106512302Oh shit, a triple drive failure? That's even worse than I expected. Maybe TLC would be better after all.
>>106511601>>106511354If you're really going to go through with this I'd also suggest buying different batches of drives before you build the thing so that in theory when they do fail they don't all fail at the same time.
>>106512559A completely oversized Seasonic that's still running fine today and was running fine before that SSD pool got installed just with 3.5" HDDs instead of SSDs. It genuinely either was just incredibly bad luck getting two different bad batches or QC on Samsungs QLC SATA drives is dogshit. But either way I just don't trust SSDs. I've had some kill themselves with bad firmware and others that are 15-18 years and two even older with easily 20+ times the TBW rating written that are still going strong. There is an insane variance of quality with SSDs, sometimes even within the same generation from the same manufacturer.
>>106511437>chat, is this true?A 5400 rpm 2.5" laptop drive can be very quiet but those max out at 2 TB.Any 8TB+ hard drive will be 3.5", probably 7200 rpm, and will be loud no matter how you mount it.
>>106511437no, poorfag cope
>>106511354It will work but it's still expensive.I placed my NAS in a different room so I can't hear it.One of the benefits of a NAS is that you can put it anywhere.Bonus points for putting it somewhere burglars won't find it.
>>106511354>8TBthey are overpriced
one of the points of network storage is you don't have to be in the same room as the drives
>>106513021>There is an insane variance of quality with SSDs, sometimes even within the same generation from the same manufacturer.This. Just look at the current Samsung M.2s.>990 EVO PlusTotally fine, I have six running across three systems right now acting as mirrored boot drives.>990 PROThere are two or three versions with different NAND modules and thus different IOPS, R/W and TBW. Which version are you getting? Good luck finding that out fucko I have yet to see a single vendor even acknowledge that there are different versions all sold as 990 PROs, only some review sites list that fact.
8tb ssd came out like 4 years ago why don't we have 16tb by now?
>>106513990SSD manufacturers have no incentive to actually compete with each other. Consumers get eternally milked with 1/2/4TB SSDs with the occasional 8TB model while enterprise gets milked on U2/U3 drives.
>>106514032It's funny because I paid less 8TB U.2 SSD 3 years ago then people did buying a QVO
>>106514059Yes but reddit femboys get the ick when they see your m2 -> u2 adapters
>>106514059Just shut the fuck up about it. Eventually redditors and eceleb cancer will drive up prices like they have with everything else, see refurbed SATA and SAS HDDs.
>>106514084Not giving femboys the ick is certainly an important consideration when choosing your storage devices.
>>106513990
>>106513990Your average retard started keeping all their shit "in the cloud." Resulting in decreased demand in the consumer market.
>>106511354>>106513854HDDs are so fucking quiet in any decent desktop case that I genuinely can't understand the usecase here. Do you have a NAS right next to the head of your bed and have disk access running 24/7?https://nascompares.com/answer/hdd-noise-levels-table-list/
>>106515077unironically, gamers are saving us from high capacity SSDs being expensive
price per tb?>>106511437they're not even loud without soft mounts unless you live in a cupboard like harry potter, and even then having a bunch of buzzing hdds with blinking leds is sovlful. newfag
>>106513990Flash memory is a cartel.They are rigidly enforcing market segmentation between the consumer and enterprise spaces, and they are setting production targets to maintain a price floor in both of those segments.
>>106511354Literally just got two. They should arrive in a couple of days~ Total death to spinning rust!
>>106511437Talk like a person, you fucking zoomgroid
>>106511354Good idea, but also I agree with >>106511411 and >>106515361. This is a NAS so it doesn't have to live right next to you on top of your desk. It can easily be far away enough that you would never hear the HDDs. Hell, it's a NAS. You could get a slightly-larger-than-necessary case and put some cheap noise reduction foam in there if you really, really think you can hear the drives. Plus, since it's over a network, you're more likely to be limited by network latency and bandwidth, than by the speed difference between SATA SSDs and SATA HDDs.I would still go with the SSDs, because for most NAS workloads (file storage, not running a production database), even a cheap SSD's write durability will outlast an HDD's potential for mechanical failure. One word of warning for SSDs, if you are using an LSI card with breakout cables, be sure the models you get support DRAT and RZAT. Otherwise TRIM might not work. If you have a mobo with 8 SATA ports and that's all you use, it won't matter. But if you use PCIe cards there can be issues. Go google it and find people bitching about it to learn more.>>106511567>>106511508The workloads for a typical home NAS (media storage and occasional desktop/document backups), or even a small business that just keeps backups/records/archives there, SSD longevity won't be an issue. If OP needs to use it for like... fuck IDK, some multi-gigabyte database backup that gets naively written hourly instead of using some native sync process, yeah you might wear them down in a few years?As I said, OP would be fine with HDDs or SSDs because the network is going to be the bottleneck.
>>106511354Still expensive, at least 4x cost of hdd, and ethernet is gonna hold you up unless you're using 10 Gb gear or higher. Noise is nice benefit.
It's good if you got that kind of money
>>106517495>even a cheap SSD's write durability will outlast an HDD's potential for mechanical failureThat's a big MAYBESSDs should last longer but it's not a guarantee.Alot of things have to go right for an SSD to outlive an HDD. If you gave me a small stack of U.2 drives that have a high build quality with firmware that's mean to be stable rather than do tricks to fool benchmarks, then I could see SSDs outliving HDDsGive me a stack of cheap SATA SSDs and I'd only be comfortable with a few replacements tucked away.Part of the problem is that SSDs are made by companies with little stake in the market.Seagate, WD, and Toshiba have all but perfected their control boards and there is a consistent quality to them where the majority of failures are purely mechanical and not because they are braindead.SSDs don't have that type of consistent quality. Two drives with the same controller and NAND could be completely different in reliability just due to how they are engineered, their component choice and how well they are built. Some companies only have so much experience in building these devices to survive in the real world.It only takes one misplaced component, a batch of bad parts, or an overheating component to completely wipe out a generation of hardware that was predicted to last almost forever. I've seen it happen where one bad linear regulator would end up costing Google millions of dollars because it almost killed an entire line of servers after 3 years.
>>106511354why would you build it failproof
>>106513854people have lights that do not see to eye and computers that does not humm small block says putputput
>>106511420This is always good advice to be honest
>>106511437yes, you should fuck your sister
>>106511354Good idea if you can afford it. Honeslty you'll get more space for you money on old school spinners. Unless you're VMs or something, you might not really need SSD pools.
>>106512261that pic should also specify if read intensive == write non intensivewhat if my disk is ready and write intensive?
>>106511437could you repeat the question
>>106511354>x86>silentpick one
>>106519042I don't think I've ever seen an x86 SSD
>>106511354>RAIDZ2I hear ZFS isn't too great with SSDs because it's CoW and that causes excessive writing. I imagine that's probably alright for fancy enterprise SSDs with high endurance but I'm not so sure with consumer QLC drives. I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this area though, maybe I'm wrong.That being said, in general it seems to me that in terms of TB/$ these SSDs are at least 4x worse than pretty good quality HDDs, purchased brand new (like I can find Toshiba enterprise drives at 16TB and half the price). These 8TB drives really seem to be very, very expensive. So the TB/$ is quite awful, for this to be worth it you'd basically need a good reason to do it. Obviously even these QLC drives will have far superior performance to spinning rust, but does your use case need the performance? They will occupy less space than the equivalent in HDD storage I would guess, but at the same time need more SATA ports / controllers. They will also be silent at all times, but modern HDDs also tend to be silent, especially if they're not hit with massive activity constantly.Basically I can see the appeal in the idea but I think the TB/$ is too far off from what you get with HDDs. 4x worse TB/$ isn't something I'd accept for mass storage unless I actually needed the SSD performance, it's too expensive. I think it's better to have mass storage on HDDs and then a couple of fast NVMe SSDs in RAID1 for shit like running VMs or whatever other use case you have that needs speed.
>>106511354I too enjoy replacing dead drives more than using them.
