Been finding some good deals on 2.5 disks lately, but have never bought one before. Have a couple of 3.5 disks on the other hand in my Unraid server. Wondering how much it matters wether I get a 2.5 or not? What form factor do you prefer/usually go for?

  • @computergeek125@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Probably best to go with something in the 3.5" line, unless you’re going enterprise 2.5" (which are entirely different birds than consumer drives)

    Whatever you get for your NAS, make sure it’s CMR and not SMR. SMR drives do not perform well in NAS arrays.

    Many years ago I for some low cost 2.5" Barracuda for my servers only to find out years after I bought them that they were SMR and that may have been a contributing factor to them not being as fast as I expected.

    TLDR: Read the datasheet

    • Solar Bear
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Whatever you get for your NAS, make sure it’s CMR and not SMR. SMR drives do not perform well in NAS arrays.

      I just want to follow this up and stress how important it is. This isn’t “oh, it kinda sucks but you can tolerate it” territory. It’s actually unusable after a certain point. I inherited a Synology NAS at my current job which is used for backup storage, and my job was to figure out why it wasn’t working anymore. After investigation, I found out the guy before me populated it with cheapo SMR drives, and after a certain point they just become literally unusable due to the ripple effect of rewrites inherent to shingled drives. I tried to format the array of five 6TB drives and start fresh, and it told me it would take 30 days to run whatever “optimization” process it performs after a format. After leaving it running for several days, I realized it wasn’t joking. During this period, I was getting around 1MB/s throughput to the system.

      Do not buy SMR drives for any parity RAID usage, ever. It is fundamentally incompatible with how parity RAID (RAID5/6, ZFS RAID-Z, etc) writes across multiple disks. SMR should only be used for write-once situations, and ideally only for cold storage.

    • Sips'OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      lol - just realised that probably wasnt the best formulation for a question ahah

  • @Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -11 year ago

    Power-consumption.

    Also, the vibration produced by the 2.5" drives is less, but they’re more-sensitive to it, to begin with.

    I’d not even consider spinning-platter drives, nowadays, though:

    SATA SSD’s for a NAS strike me as being the sanest choice.

    Samsung what are those called, Evo drives?

    excellently-high MTBF, ultra-short ( compared with rotating-platters ) seek-time ( literally orders-of-magnitude quicker ), etc.

    I don’t know of ANY reason to go with spinning-platters, nowadays.

    ( & I’m saying that as a guy stupid-enough to have not realized this in time, & who spent money on such a thing, when SSD’s really were the answer )

    • @khorak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Running ZFS on consumer SSDs is absolute no go, you need datacenter-rated ones for power loss protection. Price goes brrrrt €€€€€

      I too had an idea for a ssd-only pool, but I scaled it back and only use it for VMs / DBs. Everything else is on spinning rust, 2 disks in mirror with regular snapshots and off-site backup.

      Now if you don’t care about your data, you can just spin up whatever you want in a 120€ 2TB ssd. And then cry once it starts failing under average load.

      Edit: having no power loss protection with ZFS has an enormous (negative) impact on performance and tanks your IOPS.