Consumer-grade SSDs for media server?

[oguruma]

I know consumer-grade SSDs aren't the best option due to their poor write endurance, but what about the case of a home media server? I have 10ish TBs of movies/music on their own RAIDZ1 pool, and I'm considering replacing those drives with consumer-grade SSDs. I realize RAIDZ1 also isn't ideal, but I have an on-site and offline backup drive that's backed up to every couple weeks, and a remote backup at a friend's house (plus the data isn't exactly "critical").


Since the pool is only written to once (when the new movie is added), would SSDs, even consumer-grade ones, be a better option compared to spinning rust for this particular use case?

 

[Etorix]

Consumer-grade SSDs are a fair match for a "mostly read" use case.
Raidz1 is actually less of an issue with SSDs, which typically have URE rates of 1e-17 (HDD: 1e-14): With that (and their faster resilver), the "RAID5 is dead" argument does not apply.
And SSDs allow for a very silent NAS. At a cost… You get to decide whether it is a "better" option.

 

[MikeyG]

I know consumer-grade SSDs aren't the best option due to their poor write endurance, but what about the case of a home media server? I have 10ish TBs of movies/music on their own RAIDZ1 pool, and I'm considering replacing those drives with consumer-grade SSDs. I realize RAIDZ1 also isn't ideal, but I have an on-site and offline backup drive that's backed up to every couple weeks, and a remote backup at a friend's house (plus the data isn't exactly "critical").


Since the pool is only written to once (when the new movie is added), would SSDs, even consumer-grade ones, be a better option compared to spinning rust for this particular use case?

This is what I did for a media server. The only place I can realistically keep equipment in my small apartment is in a closet with no ventilation. I wanted a low power, low heat, low noise solution. Very fast transfer rates are also nice. Going on 4 years now and am very pleased with it. No issues so far with write endurance. I did end up using RAIDZ2 just out of paranoia though.

 

[ChrisRJ]

There are vast differences between consumer SSDs, mainly whether they are TLC or QLC. The latter should be avoided IMHO even for a home use-case.

 

[WI_Hedgehog]

For write-once/read-many applications, especially like movies with large datasets, QLC can have significant price and performance advantages over TLC. For many (not all) database applications SLC "probably" has the advantage. Check out the articles in the embedded links for more information.

 

[HoneyBadger]

For this use case, there's no reason why consumer SSDs using QLC NAND wouldn't work - provided there isn't some bug in the nature of the Crucial MX series where it likes to falsely report a failing SMART test, or a compatibility issue a la WD Red SMR sector IDNF state.

In terms of "better" SSDs will of course win out in the speed, power consumption, and heat/noise categories - but obviously at a significantly higher cost per TB, even when considering consumer-grade QLC NAND. It's up to you to decide if the increased cost is worth the benefits.