2 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- tiagod 3y ago
  What's the $/kWh value you're basing your results in?
  - superkuh 3y ago
    I pay 0.111 per kilowatt hour here in Wisconsin, USA but I calculated for 0.15 per kilowatt hour. Even at 0.30 per kilowatt hour that's still 25 years of operation before the HDD power cost equals the SSD capital cost.

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.

tiagod 3y ago
What's the $/kWh value you're basing your results in?
- superkuh 3y ago
  I pay 0.111 per kilowatt hour here in Wisconsin, USA but I calculated for 0.15 per kilowatt hour. Even at 0.30 per kilowatt hour that's still 25 years of operation before the HDD power cost equals the SSD capital cost.