SSDs in Your NAS - Power Consumption, Speed, Price, Durability, Noise and More
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- The Best SSD NAS Drives of 2023/2024 • The Best SSD NAS Drive...
Most Reliable Hard Drives For A NAS Hard Drive and SSD Shucking, Master List of Which Drives Are Inside USB Drives - nascompares.com/guide/hard-dr...
Best Entry-Level SSD, Lincstation N1 NAS - amzn.to/3s242yT
Best Home/SoHo, QNAP TBS-464 SSD NAS - amzn.to/46GTpR4
Best All Round, Flashstor NAS - amzn.to/495dBh5
Best Video Editing, TBS-h574TX - amzn.to/474kbTx
Best Enterprise Rackmount, Synology FS6400 NAS - amzn.to/3tGJHj7
Best Desktop Enterprise, QNAP TS-h1290FX NAS - amzn.to/491H0ZD
Video Chapters
00:00 - The Start
01:21 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Price per TB
03:13 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Capacity
04:46 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Durability
07:54 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Noise and Power Consumption
11:38 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Performance (Network)
16:12 - SSD vs HDD NAS - Conclusion
Should You Shuck Hard Drives and SSDs? Still Worth it in 2023? nascompares.com/2023/04/12/sh...
How to Choose the BEST Value Hard Drive and Best Price per TB - Get it Right, FIRST TIME! - nascompares.com/2022/12/28/ho...
More Hard Drives or BIGGER Hard Drives, Which is Better? - • More Hard Drives or BI...
List Of WD CMR And SMR Hard Drives (HDD) nascompares.com/answer/list-o...
Most Reliable Hard Drives For A NAS nascompares.com/most-reliable...
NVME M.2 List With Endurance - DWPD/ MTBF nascompares.com/answer/nvme-m...
Seagate Ironwolf Pro 20TB ST20000NT001 Hard Drive Massive Video Review - • Seagate Ironwolf Pro 2...
Written Blog Review of the @seagate Ironwolf Pro 20TB New Version + Noise testing + Benchmarks + Compatibility - nascompares.com/2023/02/13/se...
You can find the Seagate Ironwolf Pro 20TB Hard Drive on Amazon here - amzn.to/40LsrFt
Synology HAT5300 vs WD Ultrastar vs Seagate EXOS Video - • Synology HAT5300 vs WD...
nascompares.com/review/seagat...
www.thessdreview.com/hardware...
Should You Use Fewer Larger HDDs or More Smaller HDDs? nascompares.com/guide/big-har...
Seagate Ironwolf Pro vs WD Red Pro vs Synology HAT5300 HDDs blog post - nascompares.com/guide/seagate...
Seagate Ironwolf Pro vs WD Red Pro vs Synology HAT5300 HDDs video guide - • Seagate Ironwolf Pro v...
NAS Buyers Guide - Get It RIGHT First Time - nascompares.com/guide/nas-buy...
NAS Media Server vs Streaming Netflix, Disney+, Prime, Hulu, HBO - Which Should You Choose? - • Synology DS1522+ 4K ON...
Are NAS Drives Still Safe in 2022/2023? - • Are NAS Drives Still S...
8 WAYS TO SAVE ELECTRICITY AND MONEY ON YOUR NAS - • 8 WAYS TO SAVE ELECTRI...
Thinking of buying a product mentioned in today's video from Amazon? If this video has helped you make that decision, you can head to Amazon using this link and we will get a small % profit of whatever you buy, which goes directly back to NASCompares and allows me and Eddie to keep doing what we do here on CZcams and the Blog - amzn.to/3TjM0kj
Find NAS Solutions from SCAN.CO.UK here (and support us at NASCompares at no extra cost!) - tidd.ly/3eSqzaT
Visit the Community Support forum 'ASK NASCompares' here if you need more help - ask.nascompares.com/
Finally, if you need data storage/networking help NOW and the free advice/forum on NASCompares is not going to be quick enough for you, you can use the Ko-fi commissions page here - ko-fi.com/nascompares/commissions
NASCompares Free Advice Area - nascompares.com/contact-us/
Vulnerabilities And Exploits On Synology & QNAP NAS - Stay Updated! - nascompares.com/2021/05/26/vu...
Synology NAS DSM 7.1 NAS Software Review - • Synology DSM 7.1 Softw...
Synology DSM 7 Review - ALL PARTS - nascompares.com/synology-dsm-...
QNAP QuTS 5.1 ZFS NAS Software Review - Best of Both Worlds - • QNAP QuTS 5.0.1 ZFS NA... - Věda a technologie
Will be worth it when SSD sizes are above 10tb and prices drop !!
Agreed. Especially for cold storage and media. SSD’s are good for live video editing NAS systems.
Amen to THAT!
By that time something else will come out to take advantage of speeding up the much larger files we will have, rendering larger SSD’s not as special
Don't hold your breath. There has been zero advancement since Samsung released their 8tb drive a few years ago. Companies are clearly focusing on the commercial market.
Well right now SSD prices are looking like they will rise quite a bit. Something about the memory manufacturers raising prices so the customers will be paying for it right now. SSD's will beat spinning rust prices, but not right now. But spinning rust might actually have a hard time in a couple of years. Lesser demand from anyone not working with huge storage will cut into volumes and prices for HDD storage space won't decline the way it has until now.
The intelligent approach is a hybrid setup.
I run SSD NAS for files that are rapidly and frequently accessed throughout the day, but have an HDD pool for larger, less frequently used and archvied project files. I also run a strictly HDD based NAS for remote backups of the hybrid system.
Totally! Tiered storage is a big thing in businesses, and auto-tiering is the way to automate this part. You're already using tiered storage with your system.
I have been using a DS620Slim with 6*2TB for 7 years and absolutely no regrets. Just waiting for bigger SSDs to upgrade my server too
Great video Robbie. In the last year I've upgraded my storage with spinning drives so I'll have to wait a few years until the ROI is a bit better on SSDs. Would love the reduced noise/power though as my 2 Synology NAS sound like a cicada disco.
For most people, their hot storage is probably 5 - 10 TB, and you can use SSD's for that at pretty economical prices. Usually, it's the cold storage that still need to use HDD's. That kind of hybrid makes sense for most people, because you can quickly access your frequent files on your SSD's, and then wait a bit longer to access non-urgent files at lower prices on your HDD's.
One thing I wish we can get rid of is RAID, and I hope that the move toward SSD's with built in data integrity check (as long as the SSD's have power) will make RAID less necessary.
Without RAID, you’re still loosing your data when the drive fails.
@@Ulven3829 RAID is not a backup. As long as you're constantly and regularly backing up your data, then you can always recover from your backup whenever you discover data corruption or if your drive fails. The important thing to do is backup regularly, and run data integrity check regularly. This method works only if your data does not change very frequently, because otherwise you'll also have to backup your data equally frequently, and that might be infeasible. Alternatively, it would also work if you're ok that you can only recover back to a recovery point a week ago, rather than the last update.
RAID is a method to make your storage medium for durable and more resistant to data corruption, which is really useful back in the day when data on hard drives go bad all the time. But as the storage medium become more and more durable -- because they have built in data integrity checks -- such as SSD's when they're receiving constant power, then RAID is less and less relevant. RAID is actually a problem, and I look forward to when we can get rid of it.
@@KenoticMuse Where did I say that RAID is a backup?
SSD’s don’t need power to keep the data stored on it, so how does it become more durable?
If you have 1 drive in your server/NAS that fails, you’re down while you recover from a backup. But in a raid you , you’re still running even if one or two drives is failing, depending on the raid type. Even a mirror keeps you going, but it’s still a raid.
@@Ulven3829 Look up how SSD's work. They only run data integrity check when they receive power. SSD drives obviously continue to store data without power, but it won't continuously run data integrity check without it. Also, the charge in the SSD's will leak over time if left unpowered. Thus, if you leave your SSD's unpowered too long, your data will rot faster than on HDD. If you plug them in, then they're actually more durable than HDD.
I don't think you don't understand what RAID is for or how SSD's work. You're asking me things that this channel and many others have already addressed.
Hello, thanks for your videos they are very informative. I got a suggestion for a video what is the best and cheapest way to saturated a 10gb network connection.
I have the same Synology 4 drive NAS. My goals are not to max out some benchmark tests. For me in real world use and I find HDDs perfectly acceptable. SSDs are still too expensive per TB of storage in NAS use.
Currently running 12tb hdd, and now planning on moving to a NAS with SSD for cache.
I have a 2 unit Nvme SSD array on my NAS, just for my self hosted applications. It made a significant difference to the overall perforce of my spinning disk arrays.
Great video as always Robbie, Will stick to an NVME cache and HDD storage for a good few years I think. Where did you get your hoody from, I need one in my life.
What are your thoughts of write cache alongside read cache?
@@yensteel In my case (with a QNAP NAS) I don't use the built-in Caching feature so I can't speak for it. My transfers go to the NVME SSD from online, as with the RAID 5 the disk speed was bottleneck. These are stored temporarily to make them available ASAP. Then a job moves these over to the RAID volume at intervals where I won't be actively transferring.
Would like to see the HDD with cache as well since that's the band-aid many people will go for over the next five years.
Nice video.
I've been using a "dis-used" small(ler) 8-bay NAS for a dedicated Apple Time Machine replacement.
That was about 4 years ago, still going strong. (read: no issues, no problems, still 100% health according to the NAS)
I did make sure not to use a QLC SSD, and thus opted for SLC (that was more common back than) so it was the smaller capacity (8x 500Gb's) and noticed quite a big performance using SSD's as a bonus.
In all, SSD's can be used in most confidence, depending on the application.
Do you know if the HDD Bays are connected to a single PCIe device I could fully pass to a TrueNAS VM running under proxmox?
Thanks for your test but i am using mixed hddx3 and ssdx3 on ds1621+. It work great to mixed for many purpose.
Can you do a test with 4 x 4TB SSD's in SHR2, pull one drive to simulate a failure and replace with a blank SSD to auto rebuild. How long does a rebuild take in comparison to HDD? How long does the scrubbing take in comparison to HDD?
is there a big difference in performance when you use btrfs and shr, i wonder
Most of the advantages of SSD's are predicated on users having a faster than 1 GbE connection. I feel the vast majority of home NAS users do not have that situation, in which case, all that extra speed is cut off at 125Mb/sec for standard 1 Gig Ethernet.
In addition, SSD speeds, beyond pure benchmarking, appear to be significantly lower than theoretical. For example, pretty much all SATA SSD's tout something like 560 Mb/sec read performance. I've never seen close to this in real world copies. My DS223 using a pair of Crucial MX500's and copying between drives (one drive per volume in BTRFS) manages somewhere around 230 Mb/sec transfer rate - nowhere near the advertised read rates.
In another example of SSD's not performing as the marketing stats would have you believe, I actually get a faster, more consistent transfer rate when copying data to my external 2.5 inch HDD over USB 3.0 in said NAS than an external Crucial X8 SSD which lags at around half the 100Mb/sec transfer rate of the aforementioned HDD.
Of course, SSD's will do far better during things like RAID rebuilds, but those events are rare, so not a major plus point for me. While I do believe SSD's will become more and more popular, especially at lower capacities, they are not the utopia some believe. I use a pair of them in my DS223 because I wanted silence and low power for its use as a personal cloud server sat under my TV. However, my DS1821+ is all HDD's because of the sheer volumes available and at a price point that is far cheaper than SSD's.
Ultimately, it's horses for courses.
Power consumption, noise & IOPS are the biggest pluses for me, data transfer speed is on the bottom of the list
I've installed 2 cheap 476GB HP SSD's in my Synology RS3618XS which has (7) 10TB WD Red Pro drives in RAID 5. My server is mostly used for Plex. I consistently get a 95% hit rate on the SSDs as read/write cache devices. Large file copies hit 26GBps. Btrfs metadata (184GB) is contained on the SSDs. DSM is set to turn off drives after 15 minutes of idle time. Using a 10GBE NIC and disconnected the (4) 1Gbps ports. I have the speed and power to do whatever comes my way. Although 24GB of RAM is installed, it rarely uses more than 4GB.
Love the Sonic level card-style thumbnail!
THANK YOU!!!! BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO NOTICE THIS. It a bit of a 'deep Easter egg/cut' stretch...but hoped someone might spot it. You legend!
@@nascompares as soon as I saw it I knew. Was also surprised no one else commented 😂
(But then I am a total retro gamer and was actually wondering if it was even deliberate...)
How DARE you! "Not deliberate...
*throws 6 button mega drive game pad out the window in pure retro relatives frustration and starts ripping up copies of Sega Power in disgust*
@@nascompares 😂😂😂
i got some enterpise 500gb drives year and half ago pack of 10 of them cost me just shy of a 2tb nvme drive new and for my use case i have them set up in a 4 drive capacity with 2 as fail over but i just use them mostly from stuff i access all time or ingress to my server
Love the slogan on the hoody *rofl*
One important thing for me is how long I can use a hdd for archive storage. How long my data will still bee usable on a hdd I've in my closet. Will it still be there after 3 years....or perhaps 30 years?
Thinking of that I don't want to loose my music and/or movies.
My understanding is problems with consumer SSD's in NAS is the lack of power loss protection, flash endurance, and consistency issues with latency that poses risks to the raid array.
thanks for the vid. it's worth moentioning that the fuller an ssd gets, the shorter its lifespan, as wear-levelling isi not as effective on a full drive. This is another variable which only effects ssds, but only if they are more full up with data.
SSDs are more expensive initially but you will have to replace them less often. My 5 HDDs in my NAS are all at old age/pre fail status after only about 2 years. Thats expensive to have to replace all your drives every couple years. Going forward im going all SSD for this reason.
Well, that's what cache drives and hybrid arrays are for.
I use SSDs in the NAS that I use for incremental backups. My thought that I don't need to worry that much about the write wear. Read wear is not so much of a thing. An HD would however spend a great deal of time just spinning, waiting for something to do. For this use case, I would think that an SSD would be far more stable over time.
I tried consumer grade SSDs (Samsung, WD, etc) in my NAS for recording security cam footage, well within DWPD and TBW but all died within a month. Switched to enterprise SSD (Intel D3) and been running without issues. Also added benefit has power-loss protection which consumer grade do not.
I'm impressed by the well behaved seagulls during the noise level tests.
(How many takes did it require?)
4 takes. It took four. #ihateseagulls
When the price parity is equal, I'm definitely going SSD. But for now, I'm not willing to spend £250 on a the cheapest SSD I can find, instead of slightly under £100 on a dedicated NAS HDD. Of course if I spontaneously become a video editor, that'll change!
Great video BTW, though sad there were no seagulls! 😀
For now I’m sticking with higher volume over higher price
every youtuber really needs to recalibrate their SSD pricing assumptions. They've skyrocketed in price the last couple months. The SATA crucial BX500 (which is garbage compared to the MX500) is pushing $100/TB when it was under $40 6 months ago. Quality SSDs used to be $50/TB for PCIe 4.0 with the top tier being at most $75/TB. It's nearly double that cost now. Worst parts is all the flash mfg have stated they are cutting back production due to low demand specifically to drive up prices...which is hte exact same thing the industry has been investigated and fined MULTIPLE times in the past already and they're just out here announcing the price fixing.
Stick to enterprise ssds!! Those dc600 ssds from Kingston have really good durability stats... (a few of my old crucial mx drives have 80-95% wear out... in their smart stats..)
Why are SATA SSDs "locked" to 2.5" size?
3.5" SSDs with larger capacity would be nice. More chips could fit in it. A NAS SSD with MLC storage. Most NAS devices take 3.5" drives anyway.
On the enterprise side we now see SSDs with 66 TB storage per drive. Expensive as hell, but still.
I can't claim to know for sure, but I'd guess that the slow SATA I/O is a reason not to go for really huge SATA SSD's. Now if they were using SAS there might be a reason to build them larger. More speed means more I/O and makes larger capacities more realistic.
Besides you don't really need to make the drives physically larger. A 2.5" SSD is mostly an empty shell. You could easily fit double or triple the number of memory chips inside that case. But the customers demanding really large drives are the same who are prepared to pay for faster drives, and here SATA doesn't stand a chance.
I've long wondered the same. A 3.5" SSD would allow for larger capacity (at less than QLC) and still have room for thermals control. The latest SATA speeds are plenty adequate for most of us I'd think, though a SAS option would also be nice. Twould seem there'd be a huge market for "fast enough" larger capacity drives that don't break the bank; though perhaps the mfgs have been scared that would this 3rd middle option would dilute their sales of the others?
As is, I bought just enough SSD to get these machines running, years later, just enough NMVE to upgrade my main, and just enough large capacity spinners to have adequate internal & external storage.
I and many others may never have 2.5/5/10gbps (or at least not anytime soon) so not worried about trying to saturate my network with insane drive speeds, but would appreciate the larger caps at faster than HD.
Didn't mention power on requirements of SSDs to retain data.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did highlight the 'power on at least once every X years, or loss" at some point. I added it because I didn't mention this on an SSD review back in March and got heat for it! Also, follow to this video on the subject of a more domestic use case, coming soon
One of the conclusions - one needs always think about usecase. And probably one NAS for everything (be in SSD- or HDD-based) is not enough. Or at least one POOL is not enough.
Simple statement ... gonna need to see SSD capacities get above 10 or 12 Tb each, using a minimum of TLC quality NAND at a near equal price to HHD's at the same capacity, until then SSD's just cant do what I need them to do. Kinda like where I live in Canada, I wont buy an electric only car until it can do 1000km in winter on a single charge. Today, they just cant do what I need it to do.
Here's a thought: Why do manufacturers belligerently hold to building these smaller SSD chassis? Our computer and NAS systems can physically hold HHD sized storage, and will be for quite a while yet. Why is larger capacity SSD's not using the chassis size of HHD drives? That way you could jam a lot more NAND in the box, and use TLC or better without running into the limitations of the physical constraints of the smaller SSD unit boxes. How much is this issue impacting SSD capacity sizes? Robbie ... maybe thats a video?
From what I recall reading waaaay back in the day (Before NVMe drives were even a thing) The reasons for no "Physically larger" SSDs with more NAND, is because More Chips = More points of failure, (Just like a RAID 0 array) wear leveling more chips is more complicated, and the typical timing difficulties you get from parallel data connections.
You can find M.2 SSDs with 4 chips on them (utilizing the underside of the board to put NAND (The old ADATA SX8200 Pro was one such drive), but that practice isn't that popular for several reasons. It really is just easier to have 1 or 2 big chips, then many smaller chips in parallel.
I will switch to SSD when they will cost 300€ for 20TB like my toshiba HD. The benefits are too small compared to the additional cost.
one day one day, still to pricey for me, even a hdd nas is a bit out of reach
Nicker? What is that, I keep hearing you say it. Text turned on doesn't clear that up for me. Maybe it's some British expression I've never heard of.
What is a nicker in British slang?
A nicker is a slang word for for a pound sterling. “I sold it for a nicker" or “I sold it for ten nicker”, NB.: it's always said in the singular..it doesnt matter how many, except that its normally a low sum…
American -> dollar, buck, greenback, and others. British -> pound, quid, nicker, and others.
As well as all the above, it's also a very London-centric slang.
Quite the weird video.
1) You say SSDs are normally 3-4 times the price of HDDs, but show that the NVMe SSDs are around 240 "Nickers" compared to 100 of the HDDs.
2) You say that HDDs are around 35 Bucks per TB. If you ask the Datahoarder subreddit that would be a horrendous price. I got 6 18 TB Ironwolfs for 220 dollar per drive last year.
3) You say that its less likely for NVMe SSDs to be QLC flash but where is your proof? The SATA SSD you have uses TLC which is the same as the Lexar one you showed as an example. The Crucial P4 Plus NVMe SSD you showed uses QLC for example.
4) In your AJA Test you can see that the HDDs start quite fast with its write speed and then drop down to around 500 MB/s. On the ATTO Benchmark you argue that the HDD has the disadvantage of being highly inconsistent. First of all its mostly inconsistent in being faster than the max continuous speed (500 MB/s) and hitting 900 MB/s sometimes which should even be better for the user.
5) The biggest problem with the ATTO benchmark is that you did not check the "Bypass write cache". The HDDs have a combined cache of 1 GB, while your filesize is 4 GiB. This helps the HDDs to create highly inconsistent results even if you dismiss the Synology possibly caching stuff.
In Europe at least, Sata SSDs pretty much become useless, since its price is exactly the same as the NVMe SSDs so they should only be chosen if you need SATA devices.
IF I were to go for SSDs in my NAS, I'd want it to be Raid 0, so I don't lose so much storage space.
A nas is for size ,, not speed.
Hard drives are dead as primary storage in the enterprise. They exist only for backups and even that is starting to go solid state.