🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 12/14/2024 5:25 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I have been re-vamping my home network to try and keep things more logically, in particular separating multimedia from data such as spreadsheets, word documents, C# code etc.
>
> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6 which used to feed my streaming box so I could watch videos on my TV. It might be more useful to use those SSDs elsewhere and put my 4 x 4TB Iron Wolf spinners in the NAS.
>
> I now use my own server as network storage for my Nvidia TV Shield Pro so not using DNLA now, just a network attached drives.
>
> Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be the limiting factor.
>
> Many thanks.
>

Hard drives take longer to come out of sleep.

Hard drives have uncorrelated failures. This means building
a RAID array with them, without thinking about details, is the
correct thing to do. when one drive fails, you'll go to Degrade
state and deal with it. It could be many days before a second
drive would fail. The second drive does not "sense" that the
first drive failed. One drive could fail at 5000 hours, the second
drive at 55000 hours. These are uncorrelated.

SSDs on the other hand, have correlated failures. A worst case
would have been, if you selected four Intel 2TB drives. Intel
brick both reads and writes at end of life (at 1200 TBW). The
array can go through both Degrade and Fail status the same day,
because all four of the Intel drives could receive the
same number of writes, and their "computed service life behavior"
on all four units will be the same. Their failures will cluster
at end of life.

If you use four identical SSDs from a product line that does not
brick reads or writes at end of life, that is better. They will
blow errors. They will corrupt data. But they will not go through
Degrade and Fail on the same day while you're away on a jolly.

You can mix SSDs together. Install an Intel 2TB, a Kingston 2TB,
a Samsung 2TB, a TeamGroup 2TB and those will fail differently.

If a NAS is actually designed for SSD usage, it will be reading
the SMART table from each drive, once a day, and using the
computed end of life to give warnings to the user ("drive 4 has
23 days remaining"). Maybe if 5% of device life is present, it
will be giving alerts to make frequent backups, and/or change
out unit, before the array goes down the toilet.

Summary: For SSDs, either the user provides the service intelligence,
         or the NAS does. For HDD, the normal assumptions of uncorrelated
         failure are met, and maintenance states are normal and expected
         degrades, with sufficient time to go from degrade back to normal.

         HDD are a little slower at returning to service after a nap.
         They can use more power. SSDs can be slower to come out of sleep
         than you might think, but the HDD is a lot slower by comparison.

   Paul

On 15/12/2024 05:41, Paul wrote:
> On Sat, 12/14/2024 5:25 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> I have been re-vamping my home network to try and keep things more logically, in particular separating multimedia from data such as spreadsheets, word documents, C# code etc.
>>
>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6 which used to feed my streaming box so I could watch videos on my TV. It might be more useful to use those SSDs elsewhere and put my 4 x 4TB Iron Wolf spinners in the NAS.
>>
>> I now use my own server as network storage for my Nvidia TV Shield Pro so not using DNLA now, just a network attached drives.
>>
>> Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be the limiting factor.
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>
> Hard drives take longer to come out of sleep.
>
> Hard drives have uncorrelated failures. This means building
> a RAID array with them, without thinking about details, is the
> correct thing to do. when one drive fails, you'll go to Degrade
> state and deal with it. It could be many days before a second
> drive would fail. The second drive does not "sense" that the
> first drive failed. One drive could fail at 5000 hours, the second
> drive at 55000 hours. These are uncorrelated.
>
> SSDs on the other hand, have correlated failures. A worst case
> would have been, if you selected four Intel 2TB drives. Intel
> brick both reads and writes at end of life (at 1200 TBW). The
> array can go through both Degrade and Fail status the same day,
> because all four of the Intel drives could receive the
> same number of writes, and their "computed service life behavior"
> on all four units will be the same. Their failures will cluster
> at end of life.
>
> If you use four identical SSDs from a product line that does not
> brick reads or writes at end of life, that is better. They will
> blow errors. They will corrupt data. But they will not go through
> Degrade and Fail on the same day while you're away on a jolly.
>
> You can mix SSDs together. Install an Intel 2TB, a Kingston 2TB,
> a Samsung 2TB, a TeamGroup 2TB and those will fail differently.
>
> If a NAS is actually designed for SSD usage, it will be reading
> the SMART table from each drive, once a day, and using the
> computed end of life to give warnings to the user ("drive 4 has
> 23 days remaining"). Maybe if 5% of device life is present, it
> will be giving alerts to make frequent backups, and/or change
> out unit, before the array goes down the toilet.
>
> Summary: For SSDs, either the user provides the service intelligence,
>           or the NAS does. For HDD, the normal assumptions of uncorrelated
>           failure are met, and maintenance states are normal and expected
>           degrades, with sufficient time to go from degrade back to normal.
>
>           HDD are a little slower at returning to service after a nap.
>           They can use more power. SSDs can be slower to come out of sleep
>           than you might think, but the HDD is a lot slower by comparison.
>
>     Paul

There is another approach.  Use spinning discs if you can't afford to
use SSDs.  Helium filled spinning discs are getting affordable, but a
similar capacity of SSDs might not be for most people.

If using SSDs buy them second hand from different sellers.  That will
give a random distribution of usages.  They will already be burned in
so you will avoid infant mortality. Most of the SSDs I have bought on
eBay have had very low usage.  Good quality drives such as Samsung
850 or 860 Pro have much greater write endurance than they are rated
for.  A colleague tried to test an 850 PRO to destruction by
continuously writing random data to it and reading it back.
Many months later he gave up having had no errors and having
written several times the rated endurance.

John

On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>
>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>
>> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
>
> Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.

This is (unfortunately) not true.

The bricking policy is unrelated to SMART, in the sense
that Intel devices do not brick because the device state
is "poor".

They brick when exactly 600TBW has expired. No more or no less.
Once the average location receives 600 writes (or whatever the
technology indicates is the number of writes), the drive
just bricks. It does not even go read-only. It just... stops working.

This is why, as a consumer, you have to study which companies
have which policy.

Intel   Device totally stops responding, after each cell written 600 times.

xxxxx   Some companies, their drive goes read-only after 600 writes per cell.
        This allows a final backup to be made, before retiring the device.

yyyyy   And a few SSDs have no policy at all. You can use them until the
        critical data corrupts (loss of map), or, there is some calamity
        related to spared out blocks.

Some of these policies were tested a long time ago, in a
test series that bashed some drives continuously. And
one of the drives (one without an end of life policy), it
lasted about twice as long as predicted, and it corrupted
while in service.

If a NAS is not prepared to monitor the hardware properly,
then the user had better be aware of this sort of issue,
and check the SMART values once in a great while. Move a drive over
to another machine, a machine that won't "hurt" the drive, and
check out the SSD portion of the statistics.

for desktop users, you can get the manufacturer "TookKit" and install
that, and it reads the SMART once a day, records the Total LBA Written
value. It works out the delta, and from that, computes how many
more years the drive will last, at that rate of consumption. That's
an example of a derived statistic you can get, without becoming
a SMART table expert. Not all the ToolKits are worth installing,
but a few of them are good.

   Paul

Jeff Gaines wrote:

> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6

If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives
the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at
writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...

Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive
any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as
we all know, RAID is not a ...

On Sun, 12/15/2024 9:19 AM, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>>
>>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>>
>>> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
>>
>> Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
>

The deal is, once you start doing stuff like this, your name is ruined forever.

The only way you can redeem yourself, is to carefully document
for each model, what your policy is on end-of-life.

   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id915515

Every time I read these threads the story changes.
There are also customer queries on the Intel forum you
can read, if you are bored and there are no stamps to collect.

   Paul

On 15/12/2024 in message <ls7mo8F2nccU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
wrote:

>Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>
>If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives
>the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at
>writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>
>Yes RAID6 can survive any two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any
>one SSD failing or some combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all
>know, RAID is not a ...

Many thanks for all the replies, much appreciated :-)

It seems that I am more likely to get a catastrophic failure if I use the
same make/model of SSDs whereas using spinning drives I am more likely to
get warning between failure of individual drives. I accept there are no
absolutes, just likelihoods.

For my NAS I am more concerned with reliability and a higher likelihood of
recovering from a disk failure than speed and now I have re-vamped my
setup it will be the last link in a chain of backups i.e. backup of last
resort. I appreciate RAID is not a substitute for a backup but in this
case the NAS itself will be one of several local backups.

Still nothing off site, bit wary of the cloud since my password
spreadsheet was hacked from DropBox.

Thanks again.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

On 14/12/2024 22:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I have been re-vamping my home network to try and keep things more
> logically, in particular separating multimedia from data such as
> spreadsheets, word documents, C# code etc.
>
> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6 which used to feed my
> streaming box so I could watch videos on my TV. It might be more useful
> to use those SSDs elsewhere and put my 4 x 4TB Iron Wolf spinners in the
> NAS.
>
> I now use my own server as network storage for my Nvidia TV Shield Pro
> so not using DNLA now, just a network attached drives.
>
> Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a
> NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be
> the limiting factor.

Much depends on your application. For things like streaming video
content, you are not going to see any practical difference - fast enough
is good enough. If you are running other servers on the NAS that can
benefit from very fast random access times (DB server, or VM virtual
drive hosting) then you should see and improvement with SSD even if the
network bandwidth limits the ultimate max throughput.

Does your QNAP have multiple ethernet ports? If so it likely supports
link aggregation when connected to a switch capable of doing that. That
can remove some of the network bandwidth limit in the sense that any
single gigabit connected device will still max out at ~100MBs, but it
can cope with multiple clients in parallel at an aggregate total
throughput exceeding any one gig ethernet link.

(I run a mixture of IronWolf and IronWolf pro drives in mine after
having the original batch of WD "Red" drives fail at various points. I
have never really found performance a problem - but I don't thrash it
that hard. I do use link aggregation with its 4 gig ethernet ports though).

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

On 14/12/2024 22:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a
> NAS? I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be
> the limiting factor.

Yes. But it does depend on network speed.

If you have a 1Gb/s transfer rate, that is a bit less than e.g, a SATA
spinning rust drive BUT....

...NOT if you are looking at random seeks.

The SSD scores because the seek time is essentially irrelevantly low.

And people are now looking at faster Ethernet. 10Gb/s is not unheard of
and higher exists

And that really would benefit from modern SSDs that don't use SATA

Now I do not expect speed from my NAS. Its there to store data, not load
programs from.
As long is it can support video streaming I'm ok with that

Your mileage may vary.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>
> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives
> the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at
> writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>
> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive
> any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as
> we all know, RAID is not a ...

Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some
arbitrary number of writes.
Cells do not instantly  die at an arbitrary point, they degrade over
time and eventually reach a threshold where the error correction can no
longer cope


And if you cared enough you would monitor the SSD using SMART and
replace your drives the moment one of them started dumping blocks as
unusable

e.g.,,,

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age
Always       -       0
   5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age
Always       -       0
   9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age
Always       -       27441
  12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age
Always       -       118
160 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
161 Unknown_Attribute       0x0033   100   100   050    Pre-fail  Always
       -       100
163 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       8
164 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       85154
165 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       326
166 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       150
167 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       172
168 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       7000
169 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       98
175 Program_Fail_Count_Chip 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
176 Erase_Fail_Count_Chip   0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
177 Wear_Leveling_Count     0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
178 Used_Rsvd_Blk_Cnt_Chip  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
181 Program_Fail_Cnt_Total  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
182 Erase_Fail_Count_Total  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       56
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       40
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       1406121
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       0
232 Available_Reservd_Space 0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       100
241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0030   100   100   050    Old_age
Offline      -       290950
242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0030   100   100   050    Old_age
Offline      -       58331
245 Unknown_Attribute       0x0032   100   100   050    Old_age   Always
       -       426654

You can monitors things like Raw_Read_Error_Rate   and
Reallocated_Sector_Ct and if they start to show any activity at all,
replace the drive, Or wait till they get sufficiently high that you get
worried.

There is more in there too - UDMA_CRC_Error_Count  means a data sector
needed the CR to correct the data, and Available_Reservd_Space is spare
memeory to use to replace bad blocks

It not simple 'times up. i'm dead'

I look at my drives every so often to see what's what.  SSDS I now have
have been replaced not because they went bad but becuse the motherboards
in the machines they were in died, a far more serious problem that an
uncorrectable block error in an SSD.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 15/12/2024 10:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 15/12/2024 in message <ls7mo8F2nccU2@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns
> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>
>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it
>> gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and
>> slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>
>> Yes RAID6 can survive any two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive
>> any one SSD failing or some combinations of two SSDs failing, but as
>> we all know, RAID is not a ...
>
> Many thanks for all the replies, much appreciated :-)
>
> It seems that I am more likely to get a catastrophic failure if I use
> the same make/model of SSDs whereas using spinning drives I am more
> likely to get warning between failure of individual drives. I accept
> there are no absolutes, just likelihoods.
>
You have been misinformed. Research the topic online if you dont believe me.

SSD failures are down to gradual doping migrations that affect the
ability of the cells to retain data,  This is a function of the actual
silicon quality the temperature and how often they have been used.

And  in a twin disk setup unless you are using pure mirroring that will
not be the same for either disk

Essentially given you get past the 'manufacturing fault' early stage,
SSDs show the normal gradually rising error rates with age and use and
temnperature that any electronics does, and they are built to deal with
that by error correction and moving bad blocks out of the way and using
new ones

It is all recorded on the drive and is all accessible bia SMART


> For my NAS I am more concerned with reliability and a higher likelihood
> of recovering from a disk failure than speed and now I have re-vamped my
> setup it will be the last link in a chain of backups i.e. backup of last
> resort. I appreciate RAID is not a substitute for a backup but in this
> case the NAS itself will be one of several local backups.
>

Simply back one disk up to the other every night. RAIDS is pointless.
RAIDS is about speed and accessibility - not backup


If the backup dies, simply put in a new one
If the primary dies, put in a new one and restiore from the second. You
lose (up to) 24 hours of data but that us better than losing all of it


> Still nothing off site, bit wary of the cloud since my password
> spreadsheet was hacked from DropBox.
>
Build yourself a fireproof box and pout it in there.,

Frankly, if my house catches fire, my personal data is not the first of
my concerns. Although I probably would grab the server and race outside
with it



> Thanks again.
>

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 15/12/2024 14:19, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>>
>>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>>
>>> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
>>
>> Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
>
> This is (unfortunately) not true.
>
> The bricking policy is unrelated to SMART, in the sense
> that Intel devices do not brick because the device state
> is "poor".
>
> They brick when exactly 600TBW has expired. No more or no less.
> Once the average location receives 600 writes (or whatever the
> technology indicates is the number of writes), the drive
> just bricks. It does not even go read-only. It just... stops working.
>
No any ones I have heard of


> This is why, as a consumer, you have to study which companies
> have which policy.
>
> Intel   Device totally stops responding, after each cell written 600 times.
>
> xxxxx   Some companies, their drive goes read-only after 600 writes per cell.
>          This allows a final backup to be made, before retiring the device.
>
> yyyyy   And a few SSDs have no policy at all. You can use them until the
>          critical data corrupts (loss of map), or, there is some calamity
>          related to spared out blocks.
>
> Some of these policies were tested a long time ago, in a
> test series that bashed some drives continuously. And
> one of the drives (one without an end of life policy), it
> lasted about twice as long as predicted, and it corrupted
> while in service.
>
I do not believe anyone has that policy today, and 600 writes is
impossibly small

E.g. Kingston quote lifetime not in writes, but in hours with an MTBF
which simply does not suggest an exact cut off....


"Nevertheless: The flash cells, which electronically store data onto an
SSD device, have a clearly defined life span, in contrast to traditional
magnetic storage devices. After a limited number of write-erase cycles,
this becomes critical, since the flash memory of an SSD ages with every
write process. Manufacturers usually state 1,000 to 100,000
write-and-erase operations.

The considerable range in the lifetime of an SSD is related to different
storage technologies:

   -  Single-level cell SSDs (SLC) have a particularly long life,
although they can only store 1 bit per memory cell. They can withstand
up to 100,000 write cycles per cell and are particularly fast, durable,
and fail-safe.

  - Multi-level cell SSDs (MLC) have a higher storage density and can
store 2 bits per flash cell. They are more cost-effective than the SLC
type but can only tolerate up to 10,000 write cycles per cell.

   - Triple-level cell SSDs (TLC) can hold 3 information bits per memory
cell. However, at the same time, life expectancy can drop to 3,000
memory cycles per cell.

   -  Quad-level cell SSDs (QLC) accommodate 4 information bits per
cell. Reduced costs, more storage capacity, and higher storage density
are also associated with a shorter service life with this type of
device. Manufacturers usually only guarantee 1,000 write or erase cycles
per cell.

Although the range in SSD life spans is considerable, all SSD types have
a sufficiently high life expectancy with moderate use (with some
limitations, including for QLC SSDs)."

https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/server/security/ssd-life-span/

So no absolute sudden bricking, just data degradation, followed by
remapping of 'bad blocks' and finally drive failure.

And if you don't get greedy on storage space, up to 100,000 write
operations. Or more.

IBM may have had some policy once, but it is in no way representative of
drives on sale today.

If the drive is big and the data write rate slow, as is typical in a
domestic NAS, the things should do 10+ years.

Which is better than most hard drives.

I have a friend who used to burn those out in under a year. 24x7 massive
data files being written and read.
Doing some kind of numerical analysis



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 15/12/2024 14:59, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 12/15/2024 9:19 AM, Paul wrote:
>> On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>>>
>>>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>>>
>>>> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
>>>
>>> Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
>>
>
> The deal is, once you start doing stuff like this, your name is ruined forever.
>
Yes, yours is

> The only way you can redeem yourself, is to carefully document
> for each model, what your policy is on end-of-life.
>
>     https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id915515
>
Oh dear, a thread relating to an IBM drive 8 years ago?

And you are still touting this as 'expert knowledge'

> Every time I read these threads the story changes.
> There are also customer queries on the Intel forum you
> can read, if you are bored and there are no stamps to collect.
>

I  don't give a shit what is on Intel forums 8 years ago I care what is
common knowledge on drives available today. As produced by manufacturers.

I've shown you evidence that what you say is bollocks,. Apologize, and
move on


>     Paul
>

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 600 writes is impossibly small

As SSDs have moved from SLC to MLC to TLC the number of write cycles has
dropped and dropped, by an order of magnitude per generation, now we're
at QLC some only have an endurance of 100 writes per cell ... the only
thing that stops them dying as soon as you look at them is the increased
capacity of the device.

On 15/12/2024 18:01, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> 600 writes is impossibly small
>
> As SSDs have moved from SLC to MLC to TLC the number of write cycles has
> dropped and dropped, by an order of magnitude per generation, now we're
> at QLC some only have an endurance of 100 writes per cell ... the only
> thing that stops them dying as soon as you look at them is the increased
> capacity of the device.

No they haven't dropped that far. Even for QLC


And if you are buying QLC for a NAS you need your head examining anyway.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 12/15/24 14:19, Paul wrote:
> On Sun, 12/15/2024 8:35 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 15/12/2024 09:44, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a QNAP NAS with 4x 2 TB SSD in RAID 6
>>>
>>> If you're concerned with speed, then RAID6 seems an odd choice, it gives the same usable capacity as RAID10, it's slower at reading and slower at writing, it will burn up your SSD write endurance sooner ...
>>>
>>> Yes RAID6 can survive *any* two SSDs failing, where RAID10 can survive any one SSD failing or *some* combinations of two SSDs failing, but as we all know, RAID is not a ...
>>
>> Its all bollocks anyway because SSDs fail when cells die, not at some arbitrary number of writes.
>
> This is (unfortunately) not true.
>
> The bricking policy is unrelated to SMART, in the sense
> that Intel devices do not brick because the device state
> is "poor".
>
> They brick when exactly 600TBW has expired. No more or no less.
> Once the average location receives 600 writes (or whatever the
> technology indicates is the number of writes), the drive
> just bricks. It does not even go read-only. It just... stops working.
>

I have an Intel SSD with writes greater than 600 times capacity. It
works fine. It is quite old as SSDs go. Actually it is just plain old as
anything PC goes,  but it still works fine.

On 14 Dec 2024 at 22:25:19 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

> Is there much difference in speed between using SSD or spinners in a NAS?
> I think when I first did it people said that network speed would be the
> limiting factor.

There is not. Network speed is the limiting factor.

My NAS has 10gigE and can fill 900meg/second from four spinning HDDs.

    Cheers - Jaimie
--
You can't get a leopard to change his spots. In fact, you
can't /really/ get a leopard to appreciate the notion that
it has spots. You can explain it carefully to the leopard,
but it will just sit there looking at you, knowing that
you are made of meat.
After a while it will perhaps kill you.   -- Geoffrey Pullum

On 15 Dec 2024 at 10:09:35 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

> It seems that I am more likely to get a catastrophic failure if I use the
> same make/model of SSDs whereas using spinning drives I am more likely to
> get warning between failure of individual drives. I accept there are no
> absolutes, just likelihoods.

RAID gives you continuity, you can carry on using the NAS while
sourcing+installing a replacement drive.

Only backup gives you a backup.

If you have 4x4Tb in a raid5ish config, then I'd suggest getting a 12tb
USB drive to backup to. raid6? Get an 8tb.

    Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Don't let nouns get in the way of a good time"
 -- Jasper Fforde

On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> four spinning HDDs
  man like you still uses them?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 21/12/2024 in message <vk6eh4$1qn6$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:

>On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>four spinning HDDs
>man like you still uses them?

We're not all highly successful businessman millionaires Raj, spinners
were half the price of SSD last time I looked!

Happy Christmas & New Year to you and other members :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 21 Dec 2024 at 13:06:45 GMT, "Raj Kundra" <raj@kundracomputers.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> four spinning HDDs
>   man like you still uses them?

Price me up 4x 14TB SSDs :D

    Cheers - Jaimie

--
Remember, if something is on the news that means
it's rare enough that you shouldn't worry about it.
It's the things  that _don't_ make the news due to
being so common that you should worry about.
    -- Stephen Sprunk

On 21/12/2024 16:48, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2024 at 13:06:45 GMT, "Raj Kundra" <raj@kundracomputers.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> four spinning HDDs
>>    man like you still uses them?
>
> Price me up 4x 14TB SSDs :D
>
>      Cheers - Jaimie
>
I have no idea they make 14TB SSD nnow, sorry.
Still stuck with 4TB units.

On 21/12/2024 14:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 21/12/2024 in message <vk6eh4$1qn6$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>> four spinning HDDs
>> man like you still uses them?
>
> We're not all highly successful businessman millionaires Raj, spinners
> were half the price of SSD last time I looked!
>
> Happy Christmas & New Year to you and other members :-)
>
Trust me, I did not mean it that way, I know Jamie likes cutting edge,
hence comment. Regarding me being millionaire, is just lie. I still got
couple of Microserver fitted with 4 x 4TB Spinners each, so way out
dated with technology. If not broken leave it alone.

On 25/12/2024 in message <vkgvkm$2ddee$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:

>On 21/12/2024 14:04, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 21/12/2024 in message <vk6eh4$1qn6$1@dont-email.me> Raj Kundra wrote:
>>
>>>On 17/12/2024 11:52, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>>four spinning HDDs
>>>man like you still uses them?
>>
>>We're not all highly successful businessman millionaires Raj, spinners
>>were half the price of SSD last time I looked!
>>
>>Happy Christmas & New Year to you and other members :-)
>>
>Trust me, I did not mean it that way, I know Jamie likes cutting edge,
>hence comment. Regarding me being millionaire, is just lie. I still got
>couple of Microserver fitted with 4 x 4TB Spinners each, so way out dated
>with technology. If not broken leave it alone.

So have I! Fabulous bits of kit, one runs Linux, specifically Brasero to
create DVD iso's, and the other had 4 x Iron Wolf 4 TB spinners (half the
price of SSDs as backup).

In the last few days I have moved them to my Z170K which now acts as a
media server, 12 TB of SSD/NVMe and 16 TB of spinners!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The true meaning of life is to plant trees under whose shade you do not
expect to sit.