From the stand point of reliability, and not cost effectiveness, is using ssds in a nas worth while vs hdds? What kind of real world benefits would we see? Would it be practical to use a raid 0 with ssds and still be able to expect long term reliability from it? Considering the massive read/write cycles reached in the torture tests, it seems like it would be worthwhile (if you had the money). Could be a decent long term storage solution, and a fast one at that.
The trouble with using SSDs is they have a limited read/write life. So the more you use them the more likely they are to die. A NAS must be relied on fit safe storage of data, any speed befit you still get will be minimal compared to the massively increased chance of data loss is not worth it in my opinion. I belive windel made a good video looking at several SSDs and how they fail. Most, when they fail you lose all the data on them without warning.
This is if course ignoring the terrible gb/£ ratio compared to HDDs.
Sorry I cannot like their video, I am in mobile data and don't have the data allowance to go looking through their channel.
Not sure how much of a concern that is with modern SSDs.
It's definitely true that the point of failure is much higher than it used to be. However these drives are going to be left in a NAS where people aren't going to monitor them for many years. A NAS well have a lot of data read and written to it. For a desktop I think it is safe Because there is always somebody in the pc who will know roughly how much it is used. But I wouldn't trust an SSD with my back ups or large storage solutions. Not until failed ssds can still be read anyway
Striping (RAID-0) and reliability are two words that don't belong together, but Gigabit Ethernet is too slow to make it worthwhile from a performance standpoint even with a single drive, unless you are going to use the NAS for direct work duty and large nubers of smaller files rather than larger ones.
Common usage scenarios for NAS storage tends to write a lot less data per day than a system drive, so you can disregard the write endurance even more than one already can when it comes to system drives.
Lastly when it comes to reliability of storage, SSD or HDD does not differ in the meaning that no single drive is ever "reliable".
A NAS might be uses less per day. But generally they are expected to work for much longer. I use a nas that has not been updated for about 10 years. No system drive I have ever used was expected to last that long.
But I definitely agree with the speed issue
The only way SSD NAS would work well would be in a BTRFS or ZFS setup and 10-Gig Network backbone.
Not really they aren't really that much more reliable than drives. In the end most things just breaks of having too many hours of a current running though it what breaks something.
Depends. If the network is with 10g connection then speed. with less it's able to handle a lot of small files faster.
Raid 0 isn't practical in any setup if you would ask me. it's either JBOD or Raid 5/6/7/10
Not really as said before unless you use 10g networking connections you wouldn't see any real increase unless a lot of people are hammering a NAS. secondly a NAS read/write actions is somewhere in the range of 80/20 and up on the reading side.
A NAS is for storage so amount of data that can be stored and data security is far more important than speed. So not considering price at all I don't think an SSD NAS is worth it.
I'd say go with SSD NAS and a 10 gigabit home network. There's no kill like an overkill.
Or don't, that's actually a terrible idea. Think of the terabytes of HDD storage you could have.