195
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
195 points (96.7% liked)
Selfhosted
46168 readers
1274 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:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
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.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
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
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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
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.
TIL about TLC vs QLC, thanks
I guess my next Nas will be SSD then
If you don't cheap out you are fine