this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
196 points (96.7% liked)

Selfhosted

46168 readers
416 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

More reliable, less power draw than HDDs, faster and far more space efficient.

Unless you are data hoarding random torrents, 6 to 12 TB is plenty.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

More reliable

Heavily depends. If you want to use it as long-term cold storage you absolutely should not use SSDs, they're losing data when left unpowered for too long. While HDDs are also not perfect in retaining data forever, they won't fail as quickly when left on a shelf.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

HDDs die faster when running because they have to spin though.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

To my knowledge it isn't them constantly running that wears them out most, but spinning up and down very often. Weren't NAS drives designed to never spin down for that very reason?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 hours ago

This is partially true but SSD's do not spin at all.

I have had many a NAS drive fail on me in the past.

[–] stetech@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good and true point, but arguably most NASs are built to be used, not to be not-used…

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago

Well, they arguably can also be used as one big long-term storage. Not sure who'd need to save so much data for a long time, but there surely will be at least some people who do and buy the "modern solution" over old HDDs thinking they're better in general. As the "family backup" for example, or as cold storage solution in faculties that can be quickly accessed if needed.

Read somewhere about a professor who used SSDs to "permanently" store important data on SSDs (perhaps in the comments of the article above) for a few years. Well, wasn't that permanent…

[–] adoxographer@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Are they really more reliable than NAS “grade” HDD - and a ssd cache? I always saw SSD with a max write on them, and a NAS does plenty of I/O.

Admittedly I’ve never had an SSD go bad in my computers, but for some reason I never considered them as a good enough alternative for a NAS.

Are there any data you know of the top of your head before I go searching?

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Anecdata, but SSDs will last longer than you want to use them in terms of write endurance.

My NAS OS SSDs are 500gb hynix drives from about 8 years ago, and they're pushing 150 TBW.

150TB is a LOT of write cycles on a small drive, and they're still reporting 94% endurance remaining.

The controller will die or I'll upgrade well before that breaks at the rate it's going.

Also keep in mind that you can read flash all you want and that doesn't wear anything (unlike a HDD, amusingly), so for most consumer use cases, they'll load the drive up with their data, and then only slowly modify or add to it, but have lots and lots of read access.

[–] adoxographer@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago

I hadn’t considered that, it makes all the sense of course, as a NAS, even when torrenting with cache enabled, will give an SSD less wear and tear than an HDD.

It comes down to price vs everything else

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you use a NAS for file storage it really does not do extreme amounts of IO. Similar to a desktop SSD.

There are torrent freaks out there who really need that price performance fix for everyone else SSDs are fine. Always run them in RAID anyway for redundancy and get TLC storage not QLC.

[–] adoxographer@feddit.dk 1 points 1 day ago

TIL about TLC vs QLC, thanks

I guess my next Nas will be SSD then

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

If you don't cheap out you are fine