this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
171 points (97.2% liked)

Selfhosted

39276 readers
204 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Been finding some good deals on 2.5 disks lately, but have never bought one before. Have a couple of 3.5 disks on the other hand in my Unraid server. Wondering how much it matters wether I get a 2.5 or not? What form factor do you prefer/usually go for?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Power-consumption.

Also, the vibration produced by the 2.5" drives is less, but they're more-sensitive to it, to begin with.

I'd not even consider spinning-platter drives, nowadays, though:

SATA SSD's for a NAS strike me as being the sanest choice.

Samsung what are those called, Evo drives?

excellently-high MTBF, ultra-short ( compared with rotating-platters ) seek-time ( literally orders-of-magnitude quicker ), etc.

I don't know of ANY reason to go with spinning-platters, nowadays.

( & I'm saying that as a guy stupid-enough to have not realized this in time, & who spent money on such a thing, when SSD's really were the answer )

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I don't know of ANY reason to go with spinning-platters, nowadays.

Price per terabyte is lower on HDDs. For bulk storage they are currently the best path. SSDs are catching up though, and there are cases where a SSD based NAS does make sense. But most folks at home don’t have the network capability to fully utilize their speed. Network becomes the bottleneck.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Running ZFS on consumer SSDs is absolute no go, you need datacenter-rated ones for power loss protection. Price goes brrrrt €€€€€

I too had an idea for a ssd-only pool, but I scaled it back and only use it for VMs / DBs. Everything else is on spinning rust, 2 disks in mirror with regular snapshots and off-site backup.

Now if you don't care about your data, you can just spin up whatever you want in a 120€ 2TB ssd. And then cry once it starts failing under average load.

Edit: having no power loss protection with ZFS has an enormous (negative) impact on performance and tanks your IOPS.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Cost? I bought 3x 8TB Ironwolf drives for £115. That'd cost about £1.5k in SSDs.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well first off, if you're building a NAS, build it out of drives that are rated for NAS use. Seagate's IronWolf line is a bit pricier than their BarraCuda but has better transfer speeds and (more importantly) better resiliency to vibration, which is important if you're putting a half dozen drives in the same enclosure and don't want them to fail prematurely.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Depends on your NAS server. If you're like me and using an old optiplex, you can fit WAY more 2.5" drives in it, and they're pretty cheap. If you have an actual proper server chassis, then you probably want 3.5" NAS hard drives cuz warranty and all that.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well you're looking at it. 3.5in is faster

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Generally higher storage sizes too, right? So if you want the max storage, go with 3.5"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Cheaper too I guess

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

The 2.5 unit I have runs cooler and consumes less power. It’s also more expensive.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Probably best to go with something in the 3.5" line, unless you're going enterprise 2.5" (which are entirely different birds than consumer drives)

Whatever you get for your NAS, make sure it's CMR and not SMR. SMR drives do not perform well in NAS arrays.

Many years ago I for some low cost 2.5" Barracuda for my servers only to find out years after I bought them that they were SMR and that may have been a contributing factor to them not being as fast as I expected.

TLDR: Read the datasheet

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Whatever you get for your NAS, make sure it’s CMR and not SMR. SMR drives do not perform well in NAS arrays.

I just want to follow this up and stress how important it is. This isn't "oh, it kinda sucks but you can tolerate it" territory. It's actually unusable after a certain point. I inherited a Synology NAS at my current job which is used for backup storage, and my job was to figure out why it wasn't working anymore. After investigation, I found out the guy before me populated it with cheapo SMR drives, and after a certain point they just become literally unusable due to the ripple effect of rewrites inherent to shingled drives. I tried to format the array of five 6TB drives and start fresh, and it told me it would take 30 days to run whatever "optimization" process it performs after a format. After leaving it running for several days, I realized it wasn't joking. During this period, I was getting around 1MB/s throughput to the system.

Do not buy SMR drives for any parity RAID usage, ever. It is fundamentally incompatible with how parity RAID (RAID5/6, ZFS RAID-Z, etc) writes across multiple disks. SMR should only be used for write-once situations, and ideally only for cold storage.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Seagate has the very well earned nickname of Seabrick.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

Just buy CMR

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

2,5" drives are usually slower, but still about 5400rpm, which is on par with many NAS-specific 3,5" drives.

Also, you show Barracudas here, and I'd warn against them in a NAS environment. If you pick among Seagates, Ironwolf series might be what you need; otherwise, WD Reds reign supreme, just check that the specific drive you're looking for uses CMR, not SMR.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think there's anything between.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

lol - just realised that probably wasnt the best formulation for a question ahah

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

I recently started getting my drives from serverpartdeals 3.5". The refrubs seem to work great for my use case of just media. I have a second unraid server that is just 2.5" ssd's and 4 nvme's that I use for my personal files and photos since it's a much smaller and low power build I can stuff a bunch in a mini itx case so 2.5" is great for that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer Letters More Letters
CF CloudFlare
NAS Network-Attached Storage
RAID Redundant Array of Independent Disks for mass storage
SATA Serial AT Attachment interface for mass storage
SSD Solid State Drive mass storage
ZFS Solaris/Linux filesystem focusing on data integrity

[Thread #780 for this sub, first seen 3rd Jun 2024, 12:55] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]

load more comments
view more: next ›