SSD for NAS, do you think that high volume ssd will replace the hdd?

brentsg said:

For what it’s worth I paid about $550.

Click to expand...

Which isn't too bad. I paid slightly less for my 2TB a few years back, so I do get it- that drive is my primary Steam / Origin / etc. drive along with rolling backups for specific resources from my boot drive, and then there's a spinner for overflow.

Maybe in a year or two I can justify going all flash on the desktop and mirror a pair of NVMe drives for redundancy (and the double read speeds will be fun for benchmarks).

Yeah this let me repurpose a 2TB SSD to a gaming PC on my TV, plus sell off several 1TB drives. More SSD storage in a SFF case is always a good thing.

The big boy will be gaming drive, a bunch of bloated virtual machines, and who knows what else.

Oh, SFF?

Hell yeah it's worth it. I just can't ever bring myself to build a gaming SFF, and both of my 'server' systems are using retired gaming parts, which are also ATX...

EniGmA1987 said:

Dagmar dSurreal Simply ignoring all evidence and saying "I know I'm right, therefore I'm right" doesn't actually make you right. Since you are too lazy to bother taking 5 seconds out of your time to even know what you purchased, here you go:

View attachment 162775

That SLC cache on the 2TB drive also takes up as much as 312GB of your drive space. As your drive fills up, you can no longer use the SLC cache as much.

Click to expand...

Where was this standard for the bombastic claims that QLC is "abysmal" compared to a class of disk that includes undernourished laptop drives? There was a hell of a lot of "ignoring all evidence" going on there. I cut that analysis some major slack by using an enterprise-class drive instead of some random 5400RPM disk in dubious condition from around the house. I did not claim "I know I'm right, therefore I'm right" I actually went to the minimal trouble of running a few checks against hardware I had in hand, which happens to also agree with thousands of more thorough benchmark tests readily viewable online, and dozens of benchmark tests done by "professional" sites. I spent a hell of a lot more than "5 seconds" researching what I purchased. I've been eyeballing SSDs as replacements for my various drives for a few years now (as are the people at Backblaze) and actually went through a pretty detailed comparison of that unit and eight or nine other models repeatedly, because this is the third one of them I've bought. The wife's been using the one I put in her machine for a couple months now (supplanting a Crucial unit before it, and the Mushkin unit before that she had from before we got together), and I've been doing network monitoring of that machine to see if there's any possible way (short of buying something rack-sized from Oak Ridge) to make her Adobe CC stuff run faster by eliminating bottlenecks, although much like Oracle Server there's not much short of animal sacrifice and "VC dollars" that's going to make InDesign happy.

Citing more and more extreme edge cases is generally called a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and that's just silly when the majority use case (both in man-hours and consumers) won't resemble situations where a drive is choking because it's mostly full, and even in that scenario the newer models still handily outperform the much of what passes for 5400 RPM drives. Symmetric read/write usage is something that almost never happens, and writes greatly outnumbering reads usually falls under the heading of "WTF" so heavily weighting the importance of writes in order to come to a some novel conclusion is blatantly misrepresentative. Under fairly reasonable circumstances, the new SSD models just run circles around 5400 RPM disks, even when handicapped by "abysmal" QLC media, but they're presently best suited for a different role (one where latency becomes more important than capacity) which is why they're probably not going to be replacing spinning disks for bulk storage (excepting for people who buy gold-plated optical cables) for about the next 2-3 years. Which is the point of the thread... which was decidedly not "let's have a spectrum roll call".