New Plex EXT HDD/SSD

[Furball159.]

Hi,
So I need some help. I currently have a plex server with around 456GB of data. I run this server of a Lenovo ThinkCentre M72e and it gets the job done easily.

The problem is storage. The internal Drive is 256GB and I don't wanna change the SSD only the plex storage which as of the is a ToughDrive something rather 500GB drive *Formatted Value in NTFS is 465GB* and I need to change it out as its starting to make some noises and CasaOS is saying Damaged and the more obvious part is its getting really full. I have been browsing for new drives for a few days now and I have this criteria has to be affordable in AUD

reliable 2TB or 4TB *Flexible but much prefer one of those 2 mostly looking at 4TB for longevity* and has to connect via USB A. USB 3.0/1 will do fine even known i think the computer only has USB 2. But having USB 3 will make it faster when mirroring the old drive to the new one. Problem is no matter where I look there is mixed reviews, I'd prefer if i could get the drive from a local store like office works or such as I don't like online shopping but every drive I check has at least 1-3 one star ratings with a avg of 5-6 reviews which doesn't feel too promising, the worse part is that i though brands like Western Digital and Seagate would have reliable external drives but apparently not.

 

Please Help... It is much appreciated

 

If possible can you point me onto a upgrade path for the future if I ever use up this drive/it fails

 

(this is what the network drive looks like from windows) The server also runs Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS or something on the 22.04.X LTS Lineup I'm not sure how to check.

[skimmilk5]

Personal recommendation (others may differ, especially when it comes to storage): If you have the SFF (not the ultra SFF one) with the optical drive, rip out the optical drive and replace it with a single 3.5" Western Digital Red, Seagate Ironwolf, or Toshiba N300 drive in a 5.25"-3.5" adapter sled. Offload what's on the local disk to the new disk. Mount the disk in /mnt (let's say, /mnt/extdisk), then make a new share on /mnt/extdisk.

 

If you don't, then replace the whole thing. I know that's not what you want to hear, but for realsies, that drive is struggling. It's not designed for the workload that you're throwing on it, and the ultra SFF model doesn't have a good way of expansion. You should replace the whole thing with something that can actually take drives. I absolutely HATE the idea of using an archival drive (which is generally what's in external drive) for server purposes. You also shouldn't be shuttling that much data over USB. Use a connection that was actually designed for storage, like SATA.

[Furball159.]

1 hour ago, skimmilk5 said:

Personal recommendation (others may differ, especially when it comes to storage): If you have the SFF (not the ultra SFF one) with the optical drive, rip out the optical drive and replace it with a single 3.5" Western Digital Red, Seagate Ironwolf, or Toshiba N300 drive in a 5.25"-3.5" adapter sled. Offload what's on the local disk to the new disk. Mount the disk in /mnt (let's say, /mnt/extdisk), then make a new share on /mnt/extdisk.

 

If you don't, then replace the whole thing. I know that's not what you want to hear, but for realsies, that drive is struggling. It's not designed for the workload that you're throwing on it, and the ultra SFF model doesn't have a good way of expansion. You should replace the whole thing with something that can actually take drives. I absolutely HATE the idea of using an archival drive (which is generally what's in external drive) for server purposes. You also shouldn't be shuttling that much data over USB. Use a connection that was actually designed for storage, like SATA.

Not sure what you mean by the SFF one but mine is a M72e Mini I forgot to mention so it has not expansion bays thats why i use a external drive. But i will take that in to account if I move to a NAS for this in the future.

 

Any other suggestions?

 

So in other words without creating a visual monster which is not really a option lol I think SATA is out of the question, Plus once all the movies are on its only reading that is really happening and this drive that I'm currently using is 5 years old and has never failed on me doing this. But I did here that external drives can blow up if there is to much Data being sent back and forth and i have had flash drives fail running games before so it wouldn't surprise me considering that the computer says the Drive is "Damaged"

Edited December 26, 2023 by Furball159.
Further Clarity

[skimmilk5]

Apologies! (Sometimes, the tier I manufacturers love to use confusing terms that we all adopt for some reason.)

 

SFF stands for Small Form Factor, and it's broadly used to describe what we used to know as "desktop" computers, the type where the computer was shaped like a flatish box and the monitor (at the time, CRTs) sat on top. SFF is in comparison to a "full-size" or "tower" computer, the sort of thing that a PC enthusiast might build today. With advances in power efficiency and performance, a lot of major manufacturers have moved away from full tower computers, since the logistics (mainly shipping) is just more difficult. Ultra SFF computers come in tiny packages, about the size of the Mac Mini, and they typically have much less expansion compared to their SFF or tower counterparts. This image shows an ultra SFF computer, a SFF computer, and a tower computer next to each other.

 

You didn't specify which specific form factor you had, but if I had to guess by your language, I'd assume you have the ultra SFF model, which only comes with one SATA port onboard. The main issue with the ultra SFF models are their expansion. While they have their advantages (like the ability to mount them to the backs of monitors, since they're so small), they don't really feature much in the way of expanding storage. USB isn't a suitable connection for shuffling large amounts of data around. It's a great general-purpose bus (the Universal part of USB), but think about it this way: an external drive has a USB-SATA interface, which connects the SATA drive inside over USB. Your computer also has a USB controller, which connects USB devices to the rest of the system. USB devices must conform to the USB specification, regardless of what type of work they do (pointing device, keyboard, flash disk, etc.). When you plug in an external drive, you're essentially turning the onboard processor into USB, carrying data over USB (while inheriting its limitations), then converting back to a storage controller. USB is fine for small bits of data (think, a Word doc or a JPEG picture), but it wasn't designed for large amounts of data or constant data streams.

 

I'd suggest getting a SFF form-factor computer. The older ones typically had 5.25" drive bays for optical drives, but these bays can easily be adapted to a 3.5" drive sled, as shown by Anthony (praise be to Anthony) in this video at 8:17. Having these options will let you add a 3.5" drive, like a WD Red or Seagate Ironwolf, which was designed for these more server-like workloads. Everything stays in the one chassis (no spaghetti cables coming out of the chassis), and you get future expansion and easy repairability. 

[Furball159.]

9 hours ago, skimmilk5 said:

Apologies! (Sometimes, the tier I manufacturers love to use confusing terms that we all adopt for some reason.)

 

SFF stands for Small Form Factor, and it's broadly used to describe what we used to know as "desktop" computers, the type where the computer was shaped like a flatish box and the monitor (at the time, CRTs) sat on top. SFF is in comparison to a "full-size" or "tower" computer, the sort of thing that a PC enthusiast might build today. With advances in power efficiency and performance, a lot of major manufacturers have moved away from full tower computers, since the logistics (mainly shipping) is just more difficult. Ultra SFF computers come in tiny packages, about the size of the Mac Mini, and they typically have much less expansion compared to their SFF or tower counterparts. This image shows an ultra SFF computer, a SFF computer, and a tower computer next to each other.

 

You didn't specify which specific form factor you had, but if I had to guess by your language, I'd assume you have the ultra SFF model, which only comes with one SATA port onboard. The main issue with the ultra SFF models are their expansion. While they have their advantages (like the ability to mount them to the backs of monitors, since they're so small), they don't really feature much in the way of expanding storage. USB isn't a suitable connection for shuffling large amounts of data around. It's a great general-purpose bus (the Universal part of USB), but think about it this way: an external drive has a USB-SATA interface, which connects the SATA drive inside over USB. Your computer also has a USB controller, which connects USB devices to the rest of the system. USB devices must conform to the USB specification, regardless of what type of work they do (pointing device, keyboard, flash disk, etc.). When you plug in an external drive, you're essentially turning the onboard processor into USB, carrying data over USB (while inheriting its limitations), then converting back to a storage controller. USB is fine for small bits of data (think, a Word doc or a JPEG picture), but it wasn't designed for large amounts of data or constant data streams.

 

I'd suggest getting a SFF form-factor computer. The older ones typically had 5.25" drive bays for optical drives, but these bays can easily be adapted to a 3.5" drive sled, as shown by Anthony (praise be to Anthony) in this video at 8:17. Having these options will let you add a 3.5" drive, like a WD Red or Seagate Ironwolf, which was designed for these more server-like workloads. Everything stays in the one chassis (no spaghetti cables coming out of the chassis), and you get future expansion and easy repairability. 

So what your saying is the Ultra SFF form factor is a less than sub-optimal choice for this and while it may be able to provide the necessary processing power to preform the basic and advanced operations of plexs api's etc the storage medium of choice is incoherent at best as its adding extra steps for the system to do basic tasks. While it may work it could be problematic as the storage amount required increases and the quality of the videos increase, so your suggesting to get a tower counterpart.

I get where your coming from but is there any other options that don't involve a new computer? or replacing the internal drive. I can provide specs of the system if that comes to be a necessary factor. I'm a little tight on space where my servers are and a little tight of budget as the computer(s) i have for my server room did take up most of it. Would I be better off with a Zima Board or Just a new external HDD and hope.

 

Your Help Is Much Appriciated

[skimmilk5]

40 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

So what your saying is the Ultra SFF form factor is a less than sub-optimal choice for this and while it may be able to provide the necessary processing power to preform the basic and advanced operations of plexs api's etc the storage medium of choice is incoherent at best as its adding extra steps for the system to do basic tasks. While it may work it could be problematic as the storage amount required increases and the quality of the videos increase, so your suggesting to get a tower counterpart.

Exactly! You pretty much nailed it.

 

41 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

any other options that don't involve a new computer?

Not really. That ultra SFF chassis won't have any expansion in it, and like you've already identified, USB drives aren't a good solution for this.

41 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

or replacing the internal drive

Unfortunately, while this is great in theory, this ultra SFF PC uses a 2.5" hard drive, not a 3.5" hard drive. While you could replace this drive with a larger one, it's not going to be any more durable compared to what you have now. Most 2.5" drives (aside from the crazy expensive enterprise ones) aren't built for the workload that you'll be putting on it (essentially, a media server workload). They're built to be put into a small computer, like a laptop.

43 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

Would I be better off with a Zima Board

If aesthetics are what you're looking for, a Zima board is not the way to go. The board itself looks nice enough, but once you start getting stuff connected to it, it turns into quite the rat's nest pretty quickly. I only point this out since you identified in your OP that you don't want to create a visual monster.

 

Keep in mind that older SFF desktops can be had for cheap or even free if you know where to look. A smart eBay hunter can find a SFF desktop with a Skylake-era Intel Core i5-6500 processor pretty easily, and they trend under $100 pretty commonly. I have personal experience with the HP Elitedesk 600 G3 and the HP Prodesk 600 G2. Both can be had on eBay for less than $100. Even better, see if any local companies are liquidating, as if they give an older computer to you, they don't have to pay a recycler to deal with it! Add a drive and a drive sled, bippity-bop you're off to the races!

[Furball159.]

9 minutes ago, skimmilk5 said:

Exactly! You pretty much nailed it.

 

Not really. That ultra SFF chassis won't have any expansion in it, and like you've already identified, USB drives aren't a good solution for this.

Unfortunately, while this is great in theory, this ultra SFF PC uses a 2.5" hard drive, not a 3.5" hard drive. While you could replace this drive with a larger one, it's not going to be any more durable compared to what you have now. Most 2.5" drives (aside from the crazy expensive enterprise ones) aren't built for the workload that you'll be putting on it (essentially, a media server workload). They're built to be put into a small computer, like a laptop.

If aesthetics are what you're looking for, a Zima board is not the way to go. The board itself looks nice enough, but once you start getting stuff connected to it, it turns into quite the rat's nest pretty quickly. I only point this out since you identified in your OP that you don't want to create a visual monster.

 

Keep in mind that older SFF desktops can be had for cheap or even free if you know where to look. A smart eBay hunter can find a SFF desktop with a Skylake-era Intel Core i5-6500 processor pretty easily, and they trend under $100 pretty commonly. I have personal experience with the HP Elitedesk 600 G3 and the HP Prodesk 600 G2. Both can be had on eBay for less than $100. Even better, see if any local companies are liquidating, as if they give an older computer to you, they don't have to pay a recycler to deal with it! Add a drive and a drive sled, bippity-bop you're off to the races!

the computer itself does it really easy it runs at about a peak of 70% usage doing Blu-Ray Quality and on avg its running 480P rips from DVD's *I can't for the life of me get any better quality. from my laptop I do the ripping from. On average is does 0% usage at idle and 15% on DVD load. It at the moment has a 256GB SATA SSD I believe a Sandisk Ultra Plus it 2.5" as the original HDD was. It is the Core i5-3400T i believe with the Wi-Fi ad-on. I would be quite disappointed if I couldn't make this work but at the same time I would understand.

[skimmilk5]

It's less about the processing power and more about the disk itself. As you might already know (and sorry for repeating if you do!), the CPU is the processor for the computer, and all other devices, storage included, connect through the CPU. Modern CPUs have things like the memory controller, PCIe bus controller, chipset interface controller, and lots of other stuff on-board that let them perform a wide range of tasks. The CPU connects through the motherboard to all of the other peripheral devices, like the chipset, devices attached to the chipset (like storage controllers, USB controllers, bifurcated PCIe lanes, and more), and devices that have their own dedicated lanes, like PCIe lanes that run straight to the CPU (not passing through the chipset).

Where a more powerful processor comes in handy is for tasks that can actually leverage the processor's power, like hardware encoding and decoding for video, parity calculations for some filesystems, and higher-speed networking. However, it doesn't seem like you're really limited by processor power.

Where a newer processor comes in handy is in power efficiency and noise. Essentially, a newer processor can do more "computing" per watt (unit power) than an older processor can. For example, let's consider the processor you have now, the Intel Core i5-3400T, which has a TDP of 77 watts. (Roughly speaking and for the sake of example, we'll say that TDP and power consumption are equal.) By comparison, the Intel Core i5-9400F performs much better from improvements to the lithography, smaller transistors, better caching, etc. for just 65 watts. This has two consequences.

• For two equal tasks, the 9th generation Intel Core i5 processor can perform the task faster than the 3rd generation Intel Core i5 processor, staying at its maximum utilization (100%) for a much shorter period of time and thus consuming that maximum power (the 77 watts or 65 watts) for a shorter period of time.
• For two tasks that will run for the same period of time on both processors, the 9th generation Intel Core i5 processor will be able to use less processor cycles to keep a lower maximum utilization (let's say, 15%), whereas the 3rd generation Intel Core i5 processor will have to use more processor cycles to keep up (let's say, 70%). The older processor will have to consume more power (and output more heat) to produce the same results as the new processor.

Compare that to the role that your storage devices hold in the system. Like their name suggests, their job is to store data. There are a lot of different ways to store data, like on spinning magnetic platters, on NAND chips, on magnetic tape, even on floppy magnetic-coated discs. Each tier of these data storage devices have their own advantages and disadvantages, but for our purposes, we'll just talk about spinning magnetic storage: hard drives. Within the class of "hard drives", there are many different types, again, with their own advantages and disadvantages.

• Consumer hard drives, like what you have in your system right now, are great for cheap storage, but they're not designed for long-term abuse like what you see from a server. They often have cost-down parts in them (single-point spindles instead of stabilized double-point spindles, weaker magnets, heavier heads) compared to their higher-end counterparts. They're designed to spend most of their life asleep, only waking when data is needed from them. Examples include the Western Digital Blue, Seagate Barracuda, and Toshiba D300.
• Archival hard drives, like what you might find in an external hard drive, are even better for cheap and abundant storage, but they're really not designed for long-term or daily use. They are designed with much weaker components, since they'll probably spend most of their lives at the back of a desk drawer or in a safety deposit box, not plugged into a system. They're not designed for the harsher and heavier workloads of servers. Examples include the Western Digital Green and Seagate Archive drives.
• NAS hard drives, like what you might find in a prebuilt NAS from the likes of Synology or Qnap, are designed for a much heavier load than consumer or archival drives. They are designed to be powered on and spinning next to other drives, and they'll have features like double-point spindle stabilization, stronger magnets, and enhanced sensing capabilities to ensure they keep working for years to come. The parts that go into them are more expensive, but they'll ensure that the drive will survive more time online than their consumer or desktop counterparts. Examples include the Western Digital Red and Seagate Ironwolf. 

For your purposes, you really don't want to be using a consumer or archival drive. They're not designed for the workload that you're putting them through. It's like driving your car at highway speeds in third gear while redlining the engine. Sure, it might be able to from a technical perspective, but it's just not going to last as long and it's going to complain the whole time.

 

(Sorry for the wall of text, kinda got carried away )

[Furball159.]

5 hours ago, skimmilk5 said:

It's less about the processing power and more about the disk itself. As you might already know (and sorry for repeating if you do!), the CPU is the processor for the computer, and all other devices, storage included, connect through the CPU. Modern CPUs have things like the memory controller, PCIe bus controller, chipset interface controller, and lots of other stuff on-board that let them perform a wide range of tasks. The CPU connects through the motherboard to all of the other peripheral devices, like the chipset, devices attached to the chipset (like storage controllers, USB controllers, bifurcated PCIe lanes, and more), and devices that have their own dedicated lanes, like PCIe lanes that run straight to the CPU (not passing through the chipset).

Where a more powerful processor comes in handy is for tasks that can actually leverage the processor's power, like hardware encoding and decoding for video, parity calculations for some filesystems, and higher-speed networking. However, it doesn't seem like you're really limited by processor power.

Where a newer processor comes in handy is in power efficiency and noise. Essentially, a newer processor can do more "computing" per watt (unit power) than an older processor can. For example, let's consider the processor you have now, the Intel Core i5-3400T, which has a TDP of 77 watts. (Roughly speaking and for the sake of example, we'll say that TDP and power consumption are equal.) By comparison, the Intel Core i5-9400F performs much better from improvements to the lithography, smaller transistors, better caching, etc. for just 65 watts. This has two consequences.

• For two equal tasks, the 9th generation Intel Core i5 processor can perform the task faster than the 3rd generation Intel Core i5 processor, staying at its maximum utilization (100%) for a much shorter period of time and thus consuming that maximum power (the 77 watts or 65 watts) for a shorter period of time.
• For two tasks that will run for the same period of time on both processors, the 9th generation Intel Core i5 processor will be able to use less processor cycles to keep a lower maximum utilization (let's say, 15%), whereas the 3rd generation Intel Core i5 processor will have to use more processor cycles to keep up (let's say, 70%). The older processor will have to consume more power (and output more heat) to produce the same results as the new processor.

Compare that to the role that your storage devices hold in the system. Like their name suggests, their job is to store data. There are a lot of different ways to store data, like on spinning magnetic platters, on NAND chips, on magnetic tape, even on floppy magnetic-coated discs. Each tier of these data storage devices have their own advantages and disadvantages, but for our purposes, we'll just talk about spinning magnetic storage: hard drives. Within the class of "hard drives", there are many different types, again, with their own advantages and disadvantages.

• Consumer hard drives, like what you have in your system right now, are great for cheap storage, but they're not designed for long-term abuse like what you see from a server. They often have cost-down parts in them (single-point spindles instead of stabilized double-point spindles, weaker magnets, heavier heads) compared to their higher-end counterparts. They're designed to spend most of their life asleep, only waking when data is needed from them. Examples include the Western Digital Blue, Seagate Barracuda, and Toshiba D300.
• Archival hard drives, like what you might find in an external hard drive, are even better for cheap and abundant storage, but they're really not designed for long-term or daily use. They are designed with much weaker components, since they'll probably spend most of their lives at the back of a desk drawer or in a safety deposit box, not plugged into a system. They're not designed for the harsher and heavier workloads of servers. Examples include the Western Digital Green and Seagate Archive drives.
• NAS hard drives, like what you might find in a prebuilt NAS from the likes of Synology or Qnap, are designed for a much heavier load than consumer or archival drives. They are designed to be powered on and spinning next to other drives, and they'll have features like double-point spindle stabilization, stronger magnets, and enhanced sensing capabilities to ensure they keep working for years to come. The parts that go into them are more expensive, but they'll ensure that the drive will survive more time online than their consumer or desktop counterparts. Examples include the Western Digital Red and Seagate Ironwolf. 

For your purposes, you really don't want to be using a consumer or archival drive. They're not designed for the workload that you're putting them through. It's like driving your car at highway speeds in third gear while redlining the engine. Sure, it might be able to from a technical perspective, but it's just not going to last as long and it's going to complain the whole time.

 

(Sorry for the wall of text, kinda got carried away )

First thing is No worries about the wall of text it was very informative.

 

Now as you have afore mentioned multiple times already USB isn’t necessarily designed for lots of reading and writing which I knew was the case, what i have learned from plex using it for 5ish years is that as long as the read speeds are reasonable and consistent it has no problem at all using that drive. So it doesn’t tend to care if you use a USB drive.

 

At peak usage my power meter says its using around 15W which isn’t really worrying at all and it was never really my worry in the first place.

 

I understand the Car analogy and while it is realistic the drive is mostly at idle most of the time, I understand my HDD is a different one as I did get it second hand from a old business who had apparently done something to the drive, but i doubt it since the box and the drives performance both line up.

 

I see all your points and have been reluctant with the “replace the computer, not because its bad but because its sub-optimal choice for this type of thing” 

 

I understand what im about to ask/say is very questionable but if we do pretend that USB isn’t a problem (at least at the moment) would it be better to get a external SATA Drive Bay and get a NAS Drive and Dump it in there so that I have a drive designed for harsher workloads? Without having to replace the system. Or am I being unreasonable/unrealistic? 

[skimmilk5]

47 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

I understand what im about to ask/say is very questionable but if we do pretend that USB isn’t a problem (at least at the moment) would it be better to get a external SATA Drive Bay and get a NAS Drive and Dump it in there so that I have a drive designed for harsher workloads? Without having to replace the system. Or am I being unreasonable/unrealistic? 

That's actually not a half-bad idea that I didn't think of. It doesn't solve the problem of the existing drive having poor health (or the computer reporting the drive as "damaged"), but it's a good step in the right direction.

 

If you're going to take that route, I think the best course of action would to get a new hard drive to replace the existing internal hard drive. This will be a 2.5" commodity consumer hard drive (the smaller, laptop-size drives) like a WD Blue or Seagate Barracuda. You can then attach an external USB drive dock with a NAS hard drive like a WD Red or Seagate Ironwolf.

[Furball159.]

13 minutes ago, skimmilk5 said:

That's actually not a half-bad idea that I didn't think of. It doesn't solve the problem of the existing drive having poor health (or the computer reporting the drive as "damaged"), but it's a good step in the right direction.

 

If you're going to take that route, I think the best course of action would to get a new hard drive to replace the existing internal hard drive. This will be a 2.5" commodity consumer hard drive (the smaller, laptop-size drives) like a WD Blue or Seagate Barracuda. You can then attach an external USB drive dock with a NAS hard drive like a WD Red or Seagate Ironwolf.

Sorry If I was unclear the internal drive is reporting healthy and it is a 2.5" 256GB Sandisk Ultra Plus SSD, at the moment I'm trying to replace the EXT HDD that has my Media Library and Docker Containers On it. I did here that using USB for docker isn't the smartest because of drive usages and such but using a External SATA drive bay for the Media Library Drive and Docker Container Drive would eliminate the unreliability of a Archival Drive. I can ensure you the internal SSD has the OS on it and is functioning 100% properly sorry if you thought It was the EXT or something that was running the OS or that the internal was Damaged I should have made myself clearer.

 

Here Is the Report:
SDA (OS/LVM Group) Healthy 56 degrees C - 256GB Sandisk Ultra Plus SSD

SDB (VFAT Partiton/Boot Disk) Healthy ? degrees C - 14.6GB Generic USB Storage Device

SDC (NTFS Partition/DATA VOLUME) Name - LMS, DAMAGED(SERVICE NOW)! (Structure and Blocks) ? degrees C - 465GB (500GB) Toughdrive Extreme)

 

OS: Ubuntu Server 22.04.3 LTS (0 Updates can be Applied Now)

System Temperature: 42 degrees C

System Time: 11:17 AM Australia/Melbourne

Last Logon Time: 11:17 AM Australia/Melbourne Time

 

*Note: Hi, Just thought I'd Let you know that the computer doesn't boot linux natively for some reason so I use a USB Flash Drive with ReFind to auto boot the SDA? partiton with the boot files and it works perfectly fine if you were wondering.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Furball159.
FIX FORMATTING

[skimmilk5]

Ah, perfect! Apologies for misunderstanding!

 

In that case, I think you're sorted if you choose to switch out that dying external drive with one that can actually handle the server-like load. Since you seem pretty intent on it, I believe that your best option is to get a quality external drive enclosure and put a NAS-grade hard drive into it.

 

This way, you get to keep your existing mini PC, but you get the durability of a proper hard drive. How does that sound?

[Furball159.]

Just now, skimmilk5 said:

Ah, perfect! Apologies for misunderstanding!

 

In that case, I think you're sorted if you choose to switch out that dying external drive with one that can actually handle the server-like load. Since you seem pretty intent on it, I believe that your best option is to get a quality external drive enclosure and put a NAS-grade hard drive into it.

 

This way, you get to keep your existing mini PC, but you get the durability of a proper hard drive. How does that sound?

Sounds Great, Would you be able to point me in the right direction of a Drive enclosure/HDD for this?

[skimmilk5]

18 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

Sounds Great, Would you be able to point me in the right direction of a Drive enclosure/HDD for this?

Take a look at the Hard Drive Enclosures section of Newegg or Microcenter (among others, they aren't the only place to get these from). You'll want something that:

• Can connect over at least USB 3.0 speeds
• Supports 3.5" hard drives
• Is constructed solidly enough to support the weight of the drive

As hard drives go, again, search Newegg or Microcenter for Western Digital Red, Seagate Ironwolf, or Toshiba N300. The tier-up versions would be the Western Digital Red Pro and Seagate Ironwolf Pro, and the enterprise versions would be the Western Digital Gold or RE and Seagate Exos. These are also good options, and if you can find them on sale, they sometimes end up being cheaper than the Red or Ironwolf drives. Just make sure the drive is SATA and not SAS.

[Furball159.]

2 minutes ago, skimmilk5 said:

Take a look at the Hard Drive Enclosures section of Newegg or Microcenter (among others, they aren't the only place to get these from). You'll want something that:

• Can connect over at least USB 3.0 speeds
• Supports 3.5" hard drives
• Is constructed solidly enough to support the weight of the drive

As hard drives go, again, search Newegg or Microcenter for Western Digital Red, Seagate Ironwolf, or Toshiba N300. The tier-up versions would be the Western Digital Red Pro and Seagate Ironwolf Pro, and the enterprise versions would be the Western Digital Gold or RE and Seagate Exos. These are also good options, and if you can find them on sale, they sometimes end up being cheaper than the Red or Ironwolf drives. Just make sure the drive is SATA and not SAS.

Okay Thankyou I will back to you with what I find!

[Furball159.]

7 minutes ago, skimmilk5 said:

Take a look at the Hard Drive Enclosures section of Newegg or Microcenter (among others, they aren't the only place to get these from). You'll want something that:

• Can connect over at least USB 3.0 speeds
• Supports 3.5" hard drives
• Is constructed solidly enough to support the weight of the drive

As hard drives go, again, search Newegg or Microcenter for Western Digital Red, Seagate Ironwolf, or Toshiba N300. The tier-up versions would be the Western Digital Red Pro and Seagate Ironwolf Pro, and the enterprise versions would be the Western Digital Gold or RE and Seagate Exos. These are also good options, and if you can find them on sale, they sometimes end up being cheaper than the Red or Ironwolf drives. Just make sure the drive is SATA and not SAS.

So Here is What I Found, however out of curiosity and future proofing how would I migrate this drive to another drive in the future If i had? Since its only a single bay also if you could be so kind will this drive bay turn on if the button is pressed in when it gets power? because It is going to be unattended and if my ups went flat I won't be able to manually turn on the drive when the power is restored.

Drive Bay:

https://www.newegg.com/sabrent-ec-dflt-dock/p/N82E16817366069

 

Drive:

https://www.newegg.com/global/au-en/red-wd20efax-2tb/p/N82E16822234371

 

NAS Drives and Hardware is more expensive than I thought lol so I decided to go with a 2TB since it's still a big step from less than half a TB or storage.

 

Also will using a Drive bay change the drives UUID every time? because i use the Drives UUID to mount it automatically on boot to /media/lms via the /etc/fstab

 

Thanks again

[skimmilk5]

1 minute ago, Furball159. said:

will this drive bay turn on if the button is pressed in when it gets power?

Yes, it will. The power button on these types of units tend to be an on/off, rather than a momentary press, so it'll spin up as long as the switch is in the "on" position.

2 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

how would I migrate this drive to another drive in the future If i had?

One of the beauties of these types of enclosures is they don't mask the data at all. How the drive appears now is how it'll appear later, even if you choose to attach this drive using SATA instead of through a USB dock. The data will all still be there, since the drive format is exactly the same (for example, ext4 or xfs).

3 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

Also will using a Drive bay change the drives UUID every time?

No, the UUID is tied to the drive, not the drive enclosure, and it cannot be changed. You should be able to use /etc/fstab to mount the volume to whatever directory (/media/lms or something in /mnt) you'd like.

5 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

NAS Drives and Hardware is more expensive than I thought

Yep, but also keep in mind that the data on this quality of hard drive is relatively safer compared to an archival hard drive. It's actually designed for the workloads that you'll be putting on it without just dying, and if treated well (i.e., not dropped), I've seen these drives last over 7 years.

[Furball159.]

1 minute ago, skimmilk5 said:

Yes, it will. The power button on these types of units tend to be an on/off, rather than a momentary press, so it'll spin up as long as the switch is in the "on" position.

One of the beauties of these types of enclosures is they don't mask the data at all. How the drive appears now is how it'll appear later, even if you choose to attach this drive using SATA instead of through a USB dock. The data will all still be there, since the drive format is exactly the same (for example, ext4 or xfs).

No, the UUID is tied to the drive, not the drive enclosure, and it cannot be changed. You should be able to use /etc/fstab to mount the volume to whatever directory (/media/lms or something in /mnt) you'd like.

Yep, but also keep in mind that the data on this quality of hard drive is relatively safer compared to an archival hard drive. It's actually designed for the workloads that you'll be putting on it without just dying, and if treated well (i.e., not dropped), I've seen these drives last over 7 years.

"One of the beauties of these types of enclosures is they don't mask the data at all. How the drive appears now is how it'll appear later, even if you choose to attach this drive using SATA instead of through a USB dock. The data will all still be there, since the drive format is exactly the same (for example, ext4 or xfs)."

Sorry What I meant by this is if this 2TB drive Fills up how would I move it to another bigger drive since it Only has one Slot. Would I use a Y-Splitter for the Sata/Power Or Get Another Drive Bay As Spare/Migrater.

 

Thanks Again.

[skimmilk5]

2 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

"One of the beauties of these types of enclosures is they don't mask the data at all. How the drive appears now is how it'll appear later, even if you choose to attach this drive using SATA instead of through a USB dock. The data will all still be there, since the drive format is exactly the same (for example, ext4 or xfs)."

Sorry What I meant by this is if this 2TB drive Fills up how would I move it to another bigger drive since it Only has one Slot. Would I use a Y-Splitter for the Sata/Power Or Get Another Drive Bay As Spare/Migrater.

 

Thanks Again.

You can't Y-split SATA data. You'd need another enclosure and drive, or you can replace just the drive with a larger one and move the data off of the old (smaller) drive onto the new (larger) drive.

[Furball159.]

1 minute ago, skimmilk5 said:

You can't Y-split SATA data. You'd need another enclosure and drive, or you can replace just the drive with a larger one and move the data off of the old (smaller) drive onto the new (larger) drive.

But How would I mount the Old/New Drive At the same time?

[skimmilk5]

2 minutes ago, Furball159. said:

But How would I mount the Old/New Drive At the same time?

You'd probably need a second enclosure, to be honest.

[Furball159.]

Just now, skimmilk5 said:

You'd probably need a second enclosure, to be honest.

Aw Shucks, Doesn't matter It can always be a spare if something goes wrong and I might use it for something else in the meantime when its not doing a migration task.

Now for the money question, Would I buy both now or the second one with the second drive? (assuming the second drive would be a long way away)

[skimmilk5]

1 minute ago, Furball159. said:

Aw Shucks, Doesn't matter It can always be a spare if something goes wrong and I might use it for something else in the meantime when its not doing a migration task.

Now for the money question, Would I buy both now or the second one with the second drive? (assuming the second drive would be a long way away)

Just buy it with the second drive. No use in buying it now.

[Furball159.]

Just now, skimmilk5 said:

Just buy it with the second drive. No use in buying it now.

All right noted, Thanks so much for your help! do you mind just so if someone else has the same dilemma as I did and so I can give you credit can you summarize all of this so I can mark it as resolved? Its alright if you can't

 

Thanks for your help it has been much appreciated

[skimmilk5]

Just now, Furball159. said:

All right noted, Thanks so much for your help! do you mind just so if someone else has the same dilemma as I did and so I can give you credit can you summarize all of this so I can mark it as resolved? Its alright if you can't

 

Thanks for your help it has been much appreciated

Easiest is if you just mark one of the posts (what you found the most useful). There's a lot of information that would be really difficult to summarize.