Hi everyone! Thanks for all the contributions by others, helpful reading thus far.
I'd like to build a simple NAS for home use (Plex server, PC Backups, miscellaneous overflow storage). I may repurpose an old Xeon workstation from ebay along with 16GB+ of ECC RAM, or perhaps I might buy a server motherboard and build a server from scratch. Right now the NAS would be connected via 1 Gb/s ethernet, but down the line I might entertain upgrading my home networking. Would like the Xeon to be Skylake or newer to include Quick Sync transcoding for the Plex side of things. All in all, a pretty basic home NAS. I am considering a 3-drive RAIDz approach that would provide about 4 TB of storage.
It's crazy how SSD prices have dropped, to where they now are at cost parity per GB with HDDs (or even cheaper!). With that in mind, would SSDs be better for the server I'm discussing than HDDs? I'm reviewing storage pricing, and with how SSD prices are plummeting, some of the old assumptions and rules of thumb around storage seem to be changing (get SSDs for speed and no moving parts, but get HDDs for low $/GB). But look at these two drives:
TeamGroup Vulcan Z 2TB ($60.99 as of 7/25/23):https://pcpartpicker.com/mr/newegg/Fqt9TW
WD Red Plus 2TB ($72.99 as of 7/25/23): https://a.co/d/h63njfh
Over a gigabit network, I won't realize the added speed that SSDs offer. But these two drives have the same MTBF, and the SSD has 1,600 TBW endurance with its 3D NAND. Obviously this conversation would be different with say a QLC SSD or something with much lower endurance. But anyway, I'm not going to be hammering these drives with writes - it seems like SSDs might be the more reliable, more performant, and cheaper option?
As a side note, another interesting comparison is the WD Red SATA SSDs that are optimized for NAS use. This 2TB drive (https://a.co/d/hFAfqm1) is $149.99 as of 7/25/23, but compared to the TeamGroup drive, it has a lower TBW rating of 1,300. It seems the TeamGroup drive is more durable than the "NAS" optimized SSD, but are there other factors I'm not considering with the WD Red SSD?
Which would be a better approach, a 3-drive RAIDz approach with those WD Red Plus 2TB drives, or a 3-drive RAIDz approach with the TeamGroup drives?
I'd like to build a simple NAS for home use (Plex server, PC Backups, miscellaneous overflow storage). I may repurpose an old Xeon workstation from ebay along with 16GB+ of ECC RAM, or perhaps I might buy a server motherboard and build a server from scratch. Right now the NAS would be connected via 1 Gb/s ethernet, but down the line I might entertain upgrading my home networking. Would like the Xeon to be Skylake or newer to include Quick Sync transcoding for the Plex side of things. All in all, a pretty basic home NAS. I am considering a 3-drive RAIDz approach that would provide about 4 TB of storage.
It's crazy how SSD prices have dropped, to where they now are at cost parity per GB with HDDs (or even cheaper!). With that in mind, would SSDs be better for the server I'm discussing than HDDs? I'm reviewing storage pricing, and with how SSD prices are plummeting, some of the old assumptions and rules of thumb around storage seem to be changing (get SSDs for speed and no moving parts, but get HDDs for low $/GB). But look at these two drives:
TeamGroup Vulcan Z 2TB ($60.99 as of 7/25/23):https://pcpartpicker.com/mr/newegg/Fqt9TW
WD Red Plus 2TB ($72.99 as of 7/25/23): https://a.co/d/h63njfh
Over a gigabit network, I won't realize the added speed that SSDs offer. But these two drives have the same MTBF, and the SSD has 1,600 TBW endurance with its 3D NAND. Obviously this conversation would be different with say a QLC SSD or something with much lower endurance. But anyway, I'm not going to be hammering these drives with writes - it seems like SSDs might be the more reliable, more performant, and cheaper option?
As a side note, another interesting comparison is the WD Red SATA SSDs that are optimized for NAS use. This 2TB drive (https://a.co/d/hFAfqm1) is $149.99 as of 7/25/23, but compared to the TeamGroup drive, it has a lower TBW rating of 1,300. It seems the TeamGroup drive is more durable than the "NAS" optimized SSD, but are there other factors I'm not considering with the WD Red SSD?
Which would be a better approach, a 3-drive RAIDz approach with those WD Red Plus 2TB drives, or a 3-drive RAIDz approach with the TeamGroup drives?