5 ms·

Power. You need quite a solid PSU to withstand the power-up of a couple multi-TB drives. Space. You trade off the physical space to get more storage space. Ra

Power. You need quite a solid PSU to withstand the power-up of a couple multi-TB drives. Space. You trade off the physical space to get more storage space. Random IO bandwidth. Until 6+ HDDs (w/o counting parity/mirrors) there is no point even speaking about random IO bandwidth. > longer lifetime (writes) To each their own. You need a lot of writes to deplete TBW of a modern drive, even MLC/QLC ones. > kind of cargo culting I would say what it's not the right term here. But hey, calling everyone who uses SSD in NAS because reasons is totally the right way. Rite?

hkwerf 3y ago
I'll add two more: Noise. Feeling. Solid state devices always felt more durable to me. I know I won't use too many writes on the NAS, but mostly read. And then there's "rare" access time: If you don't want to spend power on spinning disks, you need to wait some time for them to spin up if you want to access your NAS.
superkuh 3y ago
In terms of power for an equivalent amount of storage the SSDs require much more (SSD and HDD use about the same amount of power). But you're talking transient spin-up power of course which is significant and might require an external power supply if you have more than handful of HDD. But you don't even need 4 HDD. The amount of money saved by an SSD average power draw versus HDD average power draw is insignificant and would not total up to anything even over the SSD lifetime (which is limited compared to HDD). Also, if you turn off the device and let the data sit without power SSDs' charge traps will leak and bit rot (like in an off-site scenario). The physical space required is not significantly different. They're both small form factor things even if HDDs are 2 to 3 times the volume it's 2 to 3 times an insignificant amount. Plus you need only about 1/5 the HDD to match SSD storage. Random IO bandwidth doesn't matter at all when you're putting it at the end of an ethernet connection to an rpi. You could certainly benefit from it if you put them in your actual computer though. By cargo culting I meant the entire concept of NAS in the first place for home use. Just put the drives in your desktop PC and it'll be much much faster, much cheaper, and significantly less likely to break. The power cost of leaving your desktop on for the lifetime of such a thing will be less than the extra cost of NAS parts.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  > In terms of power for an equivalent amount of storage the SSDs require much more (SSD and HDD use about the same amount of power). O RLY? Toshiba X300 4TB 16TB 10TB 8TB Operating W 6.81 6.91 9.48 8.41 Idle W 4 4.03 7.22 5.61 Samsung 870 QVO 8TB Operating W 2.4/3.3 (R/W) Idle W 0.045 > But you're talking transient spin-up power of course which is significant and might require an external power supply which costs money You need an external PSU for 3.5" HDDs because they require 12V and 5V. 870 QVO only require 5V. > The physical space required is not significantly different Come on: 3.5" HDD: 26 x 147 x 100 = 382200 mm3 (Toshiba X300) 2.5" SSD: 7 x 70 x 100 = 49000 mm3 (Kingston A400) 382200 / 49000 = 7.8 870 QVO is listed as "100 X 69.85 X 6.8 (mm)" so essentially the same > Random IO bandwidth doesn't matter at all when you're putting it at the end of an ethernet connection to an rpi. Ah, yes, because everyone is only doing sequential IO to NAS, like you? Sorry, but you arguing here in a bad faith and without even a bits of a basic knowledge.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Yes, really. So what you're showing is the Toshiba X300 8TB HDD uses about 4 watts more than SSD in idle or operating. Notably you don't seperate read vs write because SSD write actually uses more power than HDD and 20 watts of SSD write happens. You chose to characterize it by relative amount ignoring the insignificant absolute amounts. In the real world 4 extra watts of power just doesn't matter. If you have 3 8TB X300 HDD that's about $20 in power per year over the SSD. Not really something to base you entire decision around. In comparison 3 8TB SAMSUNG 870 QVO cost $1500 total, or, ~$1000 more than the 3x $150 X300 8TB. So it will take 50 years for the $20/yr energy cost of the HDD over SSD to matter. >Ah, yes, because everyone is only doing sequential IO to NAS, like you? This is a mischaracterization (or misunderstanding) of my statement. I said it doesn't matter because behind a rpi ethernet link it literally doesn't. The latency of the link and rpi compuational power dominates. You could have an optane behind the rpi ethernet link and it'll be about the same as something fairly slow. SSD in rpi 1 gig ethernet NAS are like using sports cars to haul gravel with trailers. If it was connected via infiniband it might make sense. I don't think you're making your arguments in bad faith but I do think you're a bit confused about what 4 watts is. And the physical volume thing is the same: very small things with large relative differences make for small absolute differences.
paol 3y ago
> Power. You need quite a solid PSU to withstand the power-up of a couple multi-TB drives. This is overstated. You need a lot more than "a couple" of drives to trouble even the most modest ATX power supply. Now if you were trying to run this off the RPi's power I would agree. But since this requires a separate PSU anyway it's a non-issue.

hkwerf 3y ago

I'll add two more: Noise. Feeling. Solid state devices always felt more durable to me. I know I won't use too many writes on the NAS, but mostly read. And then there's "rare" access time: If you don't want to spend power on spinning disks, you need to wait some time for them to spin up if you want to access your NAS.

superkuh 3y ago

In terms of power for an equivalent amount of storage the SSDs require much more (SSD and HDD use about the same amount of power). But you're talking transient spin-up power of course which is significant and might require an external power supply if you have more than handful of HDD. But you don't even need 4 HDD. The amount of money saved by an SSD average power draw versus HDD average power draw is insignificant and would not total up to anything even over the SSD lifetime (which is limited compared to HDD). Also, if you turn off the device and let the data sit without power SSDs' charge traps will leak and bit rot (like in an off-site scenario). The physical space required is not significantly different. They're both small form factor things even if HDDs are 2 to 3 times the volume it's 2 to 3 times an insignificant amount. Plus you need only about 1/5 the HDD to match SSD storage. Random IO bandwidth doesn't matter at all when you're putting it at the end of an ethernet connection to an rpi. You could certainly benefit from it if you put them in your actual computer though. By cargo culting I meant the entire concept of NAS in the first place for home use. Just put the drives in your desktop PC and it'll be much much faster, much cheaper, and significantly less likely to break. The power cost of leaving your desktop on for the lifetime of such a thing will be less than the extra cost of NAS parts.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> In terms of power for an equivalent amount of storage the SSDs require much more (SSD and HDD use about the same amount of power). O RLY? Toshiba X300 4TB 16TB 10TB 8TB Operating W 6.81 6.91 9.48 8.41 Idle W 4 4.03 7.22 5.61 Samsung 870 QVO 8TB Operating W 2.4/3.3 (R/W) Idle W 0.045 > But you're talking transient spin-up power of course which is significant and might require an external power supply which costs money You need an external PSU for 3.5" HDDs because they require 12V and 5V. 870 QVO only require 5V. > The physical space required is not significantly different Come on: 3.5" HDD: 26 x 147 x 100 = 382200 mm3 (Toshiba X300) 2.5" SSD: 7 x 70 x 100 = 49000 mm3 (Kingston A400) 382200 / 49000 = 7.8 870 QVO is listed as "100 X 69.85 X 6.8 (mm)" so essentially the same > Random IO bandwidth doesn't matter at all when you're putting it at the end of an ethernet connection to an rpi. Ah, yes, because everyone is only doing sequential IO to NAS, like you? Sorry, but you arguing here in a bad faith and without even a bits of a basic knowledge.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Yes, really. So what you're showing is the Toshiba X300 8TB HDD uses about 4 watts more than SSD in idle or operating. Notably you don't seperate read vs write because SSD write actually uses more power than HDD and 20 watts of SSD write happens. You chose to characterize it by relative amount ignoring the insignificant absolute amounts. In the real world 4 extra watts of power just doesn't matter. If you have 3 8TB X300 HDD that's about $20 in power per year over the SSD. Not really something to base you entire decision around. In comparison 3 8TB SAMSUNG 870 QVO cost $1500 total, or, ~$1000 more than the 3x $150 X300 8TB. So it will take 50 years for the $20/yr energy cost of the HDD over SSD to matter. >Ah, yes, because everyone is only doing sequential IO to NAS, like you? This is a mischaracterization (or misunderstanding) of my statement. I said it doesn't matter because behind a rpi ethernet link it literally doesn't. The latency of the link and rpi compuational power dominates. You could have an optane behind the rpi ethernet link and it'll be about the same as something fairly slow. SSD in rpi 1 gig ethernet NAS are like using sports cars to haul gravel with trailers. If it was connected via infiniband it might make sense. I don't think you're making your arguments in bad faith but I do think you're a bit confused about what 4 watts is. And the physical volume thing is the same: very small things with large relative differences make for small absolute differences.

paol 3y ago

> Power. You need quite a solid PSU to withstand the power-up of a couple multi-TB drives. This is overstated. You need a lot more than "a couple" of drives to trouble even the most modest ATX power supply. Now if you were trying to run this off the RPi's power I would agree. But since this requires a separate PSU anyway it's a non-issue.