SSD in a NAS?

[Fergy007]

Hey

i am looking to build a NAS for backing up pc's and storing pictures etc.

Is there any point of using SSD's over HDD's for reliability and durability.

Obviously they will use less power and run fast but is it worth the price premium. Looking at £600/TB vs £30/TB.

Thanks

[looney]

for the actual storage? no.

for os, maybe, i had a SSD laying around when i build my storage servers so i used that for the os.

[Andi]

many nas can't pull of more than 30/40 mb/s write/read, SSD would be a waste. or you get a really expensive nas :D

 

if you want reliability get WD Black RE4 drives, or WD Reds

[Guest]

I would love to use SSD's in NAS setups but for price/GB they aren't economic. I also wouldn't bother using an SSD for the boot disk as you're not going to be turning it on and off a heap.

many nas can't pull of more than 30/40 mb/s write/read, SSD would be a waste. or you get a really expensive nas :D

 

if you want reliability get WD Black RE4 drives, or WD Reds

Where did you get that number from? Most NAS setups are in the local network meaning either 100mbit, gigabit or 10gigabit cable or about 130mbit on WiFi g/n. If things are done properly, most of that bandwith will be used to move data.

[Fergy007]

for the actual storage? no.

for os, maybe, i had a SSD laying around when i build my storage servers so i used that for the os.

 

Yeah for the storage, i thought it might be more reliable as no moving parts is generally more reliable.

I think that will definitely be going on my to buy list.

 

many nas can't pull of more than 30/40 mb/s write/read, SSD would be a waste. or you get a really expensive nas :D

 

if you want reliability get WD Black RE4 drives, or WD Reds

 

I guess it would be limited to the gigabit Ethernet =/. Im looking at a decent spec one, A8 5500, 8 GB RAM etc.

Are the WD reds actually better? They seem to have a nice price premium on them. I was looking at Seagate Barracuda's, would they cope?

[Fergy007]

I would love to use SSD's in NAS setups but for price/GB they aren't economic. I also wouldn't bother using an SSD for the boot disk as you're not going to be turning it on and off a heap.

Where did you get that number from? Most NAS setups are in the local network meaning either 100mbit, gigabit or 10gigabit cable or about 130mbit on WiFi g/n. If things are done properly, most of that bandwith will be used to move data.

 

Do you believe it would make a noticeable improvement on reliability or just mainly on speed?

Also would a OS SSD improve transfer rates due to quicker response times to requests and having the data pass through it before passing onto the network?

[Guest]

Do you believe it would make a noticeable improvement on reliability or just mainly on speed?

Also would a OS SSD improve transfer rates due to quicker response times to requests and having the data pass through it before passing onto the network?

Yes, SSD's are more reliable than HDD's however I still wouldn't go with them for a NAS. They're too expensive for the sizes they come in. Think about it this way, say you've got a 2TB drive that you need to backup - you're looking at about $1500 to $2000 on SSD's in RAID 0 purely to backup that data alone - there'd be no redundency for it either due to it being a RAID 0 array. Compare that with 8 2TB Seagate Barracuda's which come in at $800 configured in RAID 10 for high read and write speeds with 1 drive failure before issue. I know which one I'd be picking.

In regards to your SSD boot disk thing - it may make a fraction of a difference but It's very very unlikely you'll notice it.

[Fergy007]

Yes, SSD's are more reliable than HDD's however I still wouldn't go with them for a NAS. They're too expensive for the sizes they come in. Think about it this way, say you've got a 2TB drive that you need to backup - you're looking at about $1500 to $2000 on SSD's in RAID 0 purely to backup that data alone - there'd be no redundency for it either due to it being a RAID 0 array. Compare that with 8 2TB Seagate Barracuda's which come in at $800 configured in RAID 10 for high read and write speeds with 1 drive failure before issue. I know which one I'd be picking.

In regards to your SSD boot disk thing - it may make a fraction of a difference but It's very very unlikely you'll notice it.

Yeah I definitely prefer the redundancy over speed when it comes to back up, was just a thought with the M500 being A LOT cheaper than other large SSD's and my Father really likes "Future Proofing".

Thanks very much for all your input :). I think i May just skip the OS SSD and put the cash into more storage.

What is the difference between say a WD Green and a WD Red, since the green's for me are about £90 and red's about £110. I have noticed they run at 5400 insted of 7200. Are they worth the diference over green's or barracuda's?

Thanks

[Guest]

Yeah I definitely prefer the redundancy over speed when it comes to back up, was just a thought with the M500 being A LOT cheaper than other large SSD's and my Father really likes "Future Proofing".

Thanks very much for all your input :). I think i May just skip the OS SSD and put the cash into more storage.

What is the difference between say a WD Green and a WD Red, since the green's for me are about £90 and red's about £110. I have noticed they run at 5400 insted of 7200. Are they worth the diference over green's or barracuda's?

Thanks

Nah. They're all pretty much the same speed, the warranty from memory is different but that's about it. I'm personally going to use Barracudas for my NAS and I know Linus uses them.

[Andi]

Yeah for the storage, i thought it might be more reliable as no moving parts is generally more reliable.

I think that will definitely be going on my to buy list.

 

 

I guess it would be limited to the gigabit Ethernet =/. Im looking at a decent spec one, A8 5500, 8 GB RAM etc.

Are the WD reds actually better? They seem to have a nice price premium on them. I was looking at Seagate Barracuda's, would they cope?

 

so you are building your own nas...thats something else. i mean something like a Synology DS413 is just slow.

 

Red are build for 24/7 use, normal greens or barracudas are not. But it's not that big of a deal. i personally run WD Black RE4 because i lost quite a few normal hdd's and i hate to rebuild raids - since i switched nothing died the last 4 years :D

 

Linus uses barracudas because they where a gift from seagate :D

 

[Fergy007]

Nah. They're all pretty much the same speed, the warranty from memory is different but that's about it. I'm personally going to use Barracudas for my NAS and I know Linus uses them.

 

Ah cool, thanks.

 

 

so you are building your own nas...thats something else. i mean something like a Synology DS413 is just slow.

 

Red are build for 24/7 use, normal greens or barracudas are not. But it's not that big of a deal. i personally run WD Black RE4 because i lost quite a few normal hdd's and i hate to rebuild raids - since i switched nothing died the last 4 years :D

 

Linus uses barracudas because they where a gift from seagate :D

 

 

 

I think i'm going to go with the barracuda's and see how I go :).

 

Thanks for both of your input :).

[IdeaStormer]

Many of the NAS makers now have an SSD option but for caching, well you can also use them for storage look at Drobo's mini. I would prefer to use it for caching to make reads faster, as that would make the most sense but you can use them for storage if you have money to burn. But as they say, back it up, which is true for Spinning Disks as well as they are not fool proof.