Enterprise SSDs for home use

ochadd

ochadd

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
1,317
I've been drooling over Ebay 6-8 TB NVME drives lately. Western Digital SN200, SN640, and Intel P4608 for example. Any reason these wouldn't work or be a bad idea with a PCIe to U.2 adapter in a small server? Seeing them for under $500 occasionally. Cheaper than even a RAID set of SATA SSDs.

They are large enough to replace two spinning disks in my home server with a single SSD. Would need to use a PCIe to U.2 adapter. The only deterrent I see is 25-45 watts of power consumption. Every 25 watts costs me $27 per year. The whole server consumes 43 watts today with 2x Sata SSDs and 2x HDD in my Dell T20. It's a Hyper-V server running three permanent VMs and an occasional fourth for testing backups/restores. File server, routing/firewall, and an NVR.
 
I don't see any problems. Tlc lasts forever too.

If you're concerned or interested in power consumption though, you can get 4tb or more in M.2, which should be price comparable and more efficient with less chips. Pcie3 will consume less and be cheaper than pcie4
 
Go for it, there are some gems of ssds on ebay.

I'm already using Micron 5300pro 8tb for my NVR and 5200max 2tb for my torrents. Specially on my NVR is a huge upgrade to search for events, but NxWitness benefits from this.
 
Abula said:
Go for it, there are some gems of ssds on ebay.

I'm already using Micron 5300pro 8tb for my NVR and 5200max 2tb for my torrents. Specially on my NVR is a huge upgrade to search for events, but NxWitness benefits from this.
Click to expand...
Went with Western Digital SN200 7.68TB. PCIe 3 x4 and NVME 1.2 spec. $57 per TB. Just crazy cheap compared to new > 4TB NVME SSDs at $150-$190 per TB for TLC. 100% MLC according to the spec sheet. They might have been initially destined for Cisco OEM servers based on the Western Digial warranty check.

Cake walk of an install, detected on first boot. Drive was brand new according to CrystalDiskInfo. I short stroked/overprovisioned it down to about 6 TB. It can only be formatted as 4k or 64k cluster size. Also write caching can not be enabled on it.
CPU is now the weak point for IO. Performance similar to a 970 evo in CrystalDiskMark but the CPU may be holding it back some. Formatted with REFS instead of NTFS like the existing drives it will replace. No idea if that changes benchmark results. Should be all the storage I need for a file server until 50 gbps network gear becomes affordable.

WD SN200
1666663053628.png

1666661157750.png


WD Red Plus and Intel S3610 that it replaces.
1666661089219.png
1666662959872.png
 
Last edited:
My first wonder would be usage, these are ent grade, so you may get one that has been abused to all heck and back, or you luck out like above and get one that is barely used!
 
MrGuvernment said:
My first wonder would be usage, these are ent grade, so you may get one that has been abused to all heck and back, or you luck out like above and get one that is barely used!
Click to expand...
Generally given the write limits on them, you won't ever come close in home usage so even used they're really good. They're measured in full writes PER DAY for many of them :p
 
lopoetve said:
Generally given the write limits on them, you won't ever come close in home usage so even used they're really good. They're measured in full writes PER DAY for many of them :p
Click to expand...

The 7.68TB SN200 is rated for 1 DWPD. The 6.4 TB version is rated for 3 DWPD. Original warranty cover that over a 5 year span. That's 14 to 35 petabytes of total writes. At the current rate I'll exhaust the flash in 1000+ years.
 
Last edited:
ochadd said:
The 7.68TB SN200 is rated for 1 DWPD. The 6.4 TB version is rated for 3 DWPD. Original warranty cover that over a 5 year span. That's 14 to 35 petabytes of total writes. At the current rate I'll exhaust the flash in 1000+ years.
Click to expand...
Deum, didnt realize they were rated that high these days!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top