Personal video, photo and music and I also like all my folders frequently check for data integrity using HashCheck (one folder) or SFV Ninja (all folders at once).
My current computer is all passive cooled and I will soon build the new one with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis, so big SSD perfectly fit here :-)
... And the reason why you need to have 8TB of storage directly tied to your local computer is...? Instead of a separate NAS PC that can manage your data (which you can access over your home network), which comes with the benefit of redundancy and without the need to dump so much money into one big ol' drive which can randomly die with your data on it?
Any person dealing with mass data bigger than a 3TB 3.5" drive might better be served by having their data managed by a dedicated network storage PC of sorts. SAN/NAS/whatever. You don't really want to deal with massive single drives because they pose an absurd risk and can cost more $/GB, making growing your storage pool prohibitive. Even in RAID arrays, the act of rebuilding a massive array can cause massive strain on the working drive(s) inevitably leading to another bad sector which can cause the rebuild to fail and your data to be lost with it.
I get it. You value your data. You want it fast. And you want a lot of storage. But a single large fast SSD isn't really the best solution.
I agree, that it is not the cheapest solution, but it is something that I trust and like for comfort, simplicity and control.
SAN/NAS/whatever need place, connection cable (I do use WiFi for better health) and I like total silence, so it would have to be in another room.
I use trusted PSU: Seasonic PRIME Titanium 600W Fanless (SSR-600TL) with 12 years warranty and I will change it probably earlier, so I minimize risk. SSDs have also their own warranty.
Also I will have 2 external big drives offline. So, 3 copies for everything.
If in any way, it would be negative... but with the volume of signals at various wave lengths we already have in the air I suspect one wifi more or less won't have any measurable impact.
It’s way too off-topic and too long to explain. Just assume that if I can easily avoid too much 2 to 5 GHz range radiation, I prefer to do it. Of course I use cell phone and do not wear tin foil hat ;-)
Just like food additives, there are everywhere and can not be avoid completely, but less is always batter than more.
The other way of doing it is to make the NAS the backup while the big drive in your PC is the fast access. That way you can do automatic backups too (although watch out for corner cases like if the PC's disk goes offline it doesn't try to empty the NAS too).
Why bother with NAS, when I have offline drives for backup? I do manual backup. It is very easy for me. I do not trust automatic backup software. Everything I do manually with help of HashCheck, SFV Ninja, PathLengthChecker and WinDirStat. I like to have everything under MY control.
I use “User Profile Personal Folders” in Windows 10 only as short, temporary folders. I move everything to “real” my folders without any desktop.ini files.
Each my main folder has checksum file made by HashCheck. There is hot folder which has files that I change everyday and there are also cold folders. So I copy only folders which changed. Than SFV Ninja check all backup files with checksum files from main drive. So that way I check also backup files integrity. Next time I use second backup drive, which is stored in different building (fire or thief risk)
Having offline backup also eliminate electricity risk (thunder storm risk).
All of your data on one dedicated network storage device is still a good way to lose it.
My storage and backup strategy is that my desktop has 2x3TB Seagate Baracudas in RAID0 for performance. My server carries all of that mirrored data with the 2x3TB RAID0 setup. I back things up every 1-2 months on to a 5TB external HDD and keep it in a fire safe.
Good performance, redundancy and availability.
At some point I'd like to switch to a 2.5 or 5GbE network (current is 2x1GbE) and also SSD bulk storage. I don't NEED 500+MB/sec of performance on my network or storage, but I'd sure like it. I don't often sit there when I transfer large files, but I do occasionally move a 4K video file or what not and twiddling my thumbs as a 18GiB file transfers over my network can be annoying (oh noes, I have to wait about 80 seconds!)
Just a comment about fire safes: If the fire department can get it put out in less than an hour, you may have something left. But the giant fires last summer that wiped out entire neighborhoods and towns created their own firestorms, with heat so intense that nothing could be done. All that was left was foundations and chimneys, and a few inches of ash. Your best fire safe would be in a bank vault's safe deposit box. Something to think about in light of recent events...
A NAS is really slow. There are a lot of uses for which it’s the worst solution. I do agree that a very large, by today’s standards, and expensive SSD isn’t a great solution, if we’re talking cost.
Seriously, content doesn’t require a fast drive. Unless you’ve got several people pounding on it at the same time, the slowest archival HDD is more than fast enough. 8TB costs just a bit more than $200. Put a couple together and you’ve got way more than you need. Back that up with a couple more, and you’re set. The whole thing can cost a bit over $1,000. If 16TB of storage, plus 16TB backup isn’t enough, then you’ve got too much junk to watch.
I completely agree with JoeyJoJo123. There is very little point putting "Personal video, photo and music" on SSDs. They simply don't need the bandwidth. (You would actually be very well served with SATA SSDs.) The way I see it there are only three reasons for putting huge media collections on SSDs: 1) If you do a lot of video editing. (But even then you should probably prioritise and keep only the most frequently used on SSD and move the files to a NAS/DAS when you've finished editing that project.) 2) If you need to carry it with you in a laptop, because SSDs have higher storage density and are less likely to break from accidental drops or heavy handling. 3) Noise from spinning drives. (Not a concern with a NAS as you can place it wherever you pull a network cable.)
While I understand that it is indeed convenient to keep the files on internal drives the traditional way, I would, just like JoeyJoJo123, really recommend anyone who has more than a few TB of data to go for a NAS. That would give the added convenience of the following features (if you wish to have them, or if your user needs change): - A redundant storage system. - Good options for automatic offsite backups to other NASes or cloud services. - Allows accessing your files from smartphones, tables on the go. - Easily setting up your own cloud storage with sync (like your own Dropbox). - Various media center/HTPC apps. - Other services like web server etc. And that is even before mentioning any feature that is handy for multiple users (families or sharing with friends). If you are worried about data integrity you could consider a NAS which features regular checksums on the filesystem level, such as with ZFS or BTRFS. Moving away from local storage is a big step. It can sometimes feel like you lose a bit of the control when you're moving your files to a new operating system, but I think that the added features outweigh the inconvenience. Good to hear that you have a good backup strategy. That would be my other concern with using single large drives of any type.
I would find a way to reduce my local storage needs were I in a situation where I had to find a home for so much data, but to each their own. A NAS is fine if you have a reason to share data between multiple devices and potentially multiple people, but regardless of whether or not a drive is stuffed into a NAS, a desktop, or your laptop there is still a purchase of said storage that must be made regardless. Why add the burden of a NAS when you're only serving files to yourself?
PeachNCream, good point! I do not share anything online, I do not stream and I do not use social media. All my family and friends are welcomed to my living room when we can socialize and watch all my media.
You are right AdditionalPylons about three reasons for putting huge media collections on SSDs: 1) video editing 2) moving computer to another building 3) silence
There are couple more, but all three above are important for me.
And yes, ZFS would be nice, if Windows 10 could use it. I do not want too bother with Linux or other exotic OSes, which can handle this. I like simplicity and full control for everything. And If something work for me for years I do not need any new “big step”. Like I said in another post I do not upload to social media, need any internal network, so why complicate myself live? I would like to have everything in one drive in one computer, except backup.
The reason you're not going to find what you want is because the vast majority of users, both consumer and enterprise, are going to use HDDs for that use case. There is no benefit to using SSDs unless you frequently pull down many gigabytes of your media at a time. HDDs have better $/GB and better understood failure patterns/rates.
Yes, I found what I want: 7TB+ SSD with 3000MB/s. I just thought, that new QLC from Intel will be cheaper per GB than old TLC from Samsung.
Yes there are benefit: 1. Total silence which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis 2. Less heat which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis 3. Less space taken which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis 4. Shock resistant which is important when moving heavy HDPLEX H5 passive chassis 5. Fast editing video files using Adobe Premiere 6. Fast duplicating files using File Explorer 7. Fast checking checksum files using HashCheck (one folder) or SFV Ninja (all folders at once) 8. Fast checking MediaInfo data using PlayTime (all videos at once) 9. Fast Backup 10. Fast and responsive using all other programs, files - so more comfort.
HDDs are only cheaper than SSDs and that’s it.
Failure rate? Backup and frequently checking checksum files with HashCheck or SFV Ninja. I load all checksum files for all my folders in SFV Ninja and with 3000MB/s it is lighting fast - whole disk checked! If something is wrong I have got two more copies of everything.
I think these drives are intended for large enterprise database servers like SQL Server. For these drives specifically Xeon class machines - Intel only because of chipset requirements.,
I just got myself 4 Samsung 1TB SATA EVOs earlier this year and put them into an Intel software RAID0 to create the 4TB NVME/U.2 I couldn't fit into that machine, because the PCIe slots were alreay max'ed out with an GTX 1060 for Steam streaming, an LSI RAID6 for running the 8x 4TB HDD array and an Aquantia 10Gbit Ethernet card. It's a "desktop" E3 Xeon so 8+4+4 lanes off the CPU and 4 lanes off the PCH is all you get unless you manage to get someone to sell you a motherboard with a PCIe switch, which Avago/Broadcom seems to have priced out of reach to pay for their mergers.
And since I cannot see anyone selling M.2 "RAID" adapters with a proper PCIe switch on a budget (or even for real money), I decided to bite the bullet and stick with SATA, where the PCH is essentially a switch, albeit one with a bit of protocol overhead, but lots of maturity and BIOS/OS support.
With the spinning rust hanging off 4 lanes on the CPU side, I get all of the 4 lanes reserved for the PCH to multiplex via SATA among 8 onboard ports, which even 550MB SSDs will saturate before the ports run out.
But even if you're all SSD, using a more modern SAS/SATA RAID[0] controller with a full set of high-capacity SATA SSDs may not be that much worse in terms of performance than a really high-capacity NVMe unit, while you can get a much better deal on capacity/$.
It's not the latency I'd like and NVMe/PCIe switches could provide, but in my case much of the data then goes 10Gbase-T Ethernet, so it's not worth paying top dollar for little practical gain.
Of course it helped that I had 4x and 6x 2.5" SATA enclosures around to fit into the slot where the DVD used to be, because I need the space in the tower to run those 2.5" HDDs in vibe-fixers originally meant for 3,5" drives: No fans required and completely unnoticeable even if they spin and seek.
Just saying that even if U.2 isn't designed for cheap and 8TB NVMe SSDs may not be mainstream enough for a little longer, high capacity SSD can be used for good performance at a relatively flat linear cost scale with SATA and EVO, who also happen to be RELIABLE.
Are these the same Optane's used in new Dell's that provide 2.7x increase in performance in SQL Server - which I believe treats the database like persistent RAM. I would expect technically if an Application is designed to use would be even more performance. Also noted Samsung is single port transfer rate - these have dual ports and should be twice as fast.
I think the Optane drives are in different league than normal SSD's - because of changes required in chipset. Using them as normal SSD is probably under usage.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
Back to Article
Greg100 - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
It's too expensive… :(Intel D5 P4326 15.3TB 2.5in U.2 (QLC)
3 313,15 € excl. VAT (redcorp.com)
Samsung PM983 7.68TB 2.5in U.2 (TLC)
1 126,82 € excl. VAT (proshop.de)
so 2x PM983 7.68TB will be:
2 253,64 € excl. VAT for 15.3TB TLC SSD!!!
Greg100 - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
If anybody know better price for Intel D5 P4326 15.3TB 2.5in U.2 let me know.I’m a consumer and I want big (7TB+), fast (U.2) and cheap.
Now Samsung PM983 7.68TB is the cheapest 3000MB/s big SSD.
Samsung SSD 860 EVO 4TB... 550MB/s???? ...no, thanks :(
AdditionalPylons - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
Out of curiosity, what is your use case for such a large SSD?Greg100 - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
Personal video, photo and music and I also like all my folders frequently check for data integrity using HashCheck (one folder) or SFV Ninja (all folders at once).My current computer is all passive cooled and I will soon build the new one with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis, so big SSD perfectly fit here :-)
JoeyJoJo123 - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
... And the reason why you need to have 8TB of storage directly tied to your local computer is...? Instead of a separate NAS PC that can manage your data (which you can access over your home network), which comes with the benefit of redundancy and without the need to dump so much money into one big ol' drive which can randomly die with your data on it?Any person dealing with mass data bigger than a 3TB 3.5" drive might better be served by having their data managed by a dedicated network storage PC of sorts. SAN/NAS/whatever. You don't really want to deal with massive single drives because they pose an absurd risk and can cost more $/GB, making growing your storage pool prohibitive. Even in RAID arrays, the act of rebuilding a massive array can cause massive strain on the working drive(s) inevitably leading to another bad sector which can cause the rebuild to fail and your data to be lost with it.
I get it. You value your data. You want it fast. And you want a lot of storage. But a single large fast SSD isn't really the best solution.
Greg100 - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
I agree, that it is not the cheapest solution, but it is something that I trust and like for comfort, simplicity and control.SAN/NAS/whatever need place, connection cable (I do use WiFi for better health) and I like total silence, so it would have to be in another room.
I use trusted PSU: Seasonic PRIME Titanium 600W Fanless (SSR-600TL) with 12 years warranty and I will change it probably earlier, so I minimize risk. SSDs have also their own warranty.
Also I will have 2 external big drives offline. So, 3 copies for everything.
rpg1966 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
Everything else about this situation aside, explain to us how having wifi could possibly affect your health?HollyDOL - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
If in any way, it would be negative... but with the volume of signals at various wave lengths we already have in the air I suspect one wifi more or less won't have any measurable impact.Greg100 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
It’s way too off-topic and too long to explain. Just assume that if I can easily avoid too much 2 to 5 GHz range radiation, I prefer to do it. Of course I use cell phone and do not wear tin foil hat ;-)Just like food additives, there are everywhere and can not be avoid completely, but less is always batter than more.
FunBunny2 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
"Just like food additives, there are everywhere and can not be avoid completely, but less is always batter than more."you'd batter get a supply of them their tin foil hats... 5G's a comin'!!!!
stephenbrooks - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
The other way of doing it is to make the NAS the backup while the big drive in your PC is the fast access. That way you can do automatic backups too (although watch out for corner cases like if the PC's disk goes offline it doesn't try to empty the NAS too).Greg100 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
Why bother with NAS, when I have offline drives for backup? I do manual backup. It is very easy for me. I do not trust automatic backup software. Everything I do manually with help of HashCheck, SFV Ninja, PathLengthChecker and WinDirStat. I like to have everything under MY control.I use “User Profile Personal Folders” in Windows 10 only as short, temporary folders. I move everything to “real” my folders without any desktop.ini files.
Each my main folder has checksum file made by HashCheck.
There is hot folder which has files that I change everyday and there are also cold folders.
So I copy only folders which changed. Than SFV Ninja check all backup files with checksum files from main drive. So that way I check also backup files integrity. Next time I use second backup drive, which is stored in different building (fire or thief risk)
Having offline backup also eliminate electricity risk (thunder storm risk).
azazel1024 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
All of your data on one dedicated network storage device is still a good way to lose it.My storage and backup strategy is that my desktop has 2x3TB Seagate Baracudas in RAID0 for performance. My server carries all of that mirrored data with the 2x3TB RAID0 setup. I back things up every 1-2 months on to a 5TB external HDD and keep it in a fire safe.
Good performance, redundancy and availability.
At some point I'd like to switch to a 2.5 or 5GbE network (current is 2x1GbE) and also SSD bulk storage. I don't NEED 500+MB/sec of performance on my network or storage, but I'd sure like it. I don't often sit there when I transfer large files, but I do occasionally move a 4K video file or what not and twiddling my thumbs as a 18GiB file transfers over my network can be annoying (oh noes, I have to wait about 80 seconds!)
dwbogardus - Thursday, April 4, 2019 - link
Just a comment about fire safes: If the fire department can get it put out in less than an hour, you may have something left. But the giant fires last summer that wiped out entire neighborhoods and towns created their own firestorms, with heat so intense that nothing could be done. All that was left was foundations and chimneys, and a few inches of ash. Your best fire safe would be in a bank vault's safe deposit box. Something to think about in light of recent events...melgross - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
A NAS is really slow. There are a lot of uses for which it’s the worst solution. I do agree that a very large, by today’s standards, and expensive SSD isn’t a great solution, if we’re talking cost.Seriously, content doesn’t require a fast drive. Unless you’ve got several people pounding on it at the same time, the slowest archival HDD is more than fast enough. 8TB costs just a bit more than $200. Put a couple together and you’ve got way more than you need. Back that up with a couple more, and you’re set. The whole thing can cost a bit over $1,000. If 16TB of storage, plus 16TB backup isn’t enough, then you’ve got too much junk to watch.
AdditionalPylons - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
I completely agree with JoeyJoJo123.There is very little point putting "Personal video, photo and music" on SSDs. They simply don't need the bandwidth. (You would actually be very well served with SATA SSDs.)
The way I see it there are only three reasons for putting huge media collections on SSDs:
1) If you do a lot of video editing. (But even then you should probably prioritise and keep only the most frequently used on SSD and move the files to a NAS/DAS when you've finished editing that project.)
2) If you need to carry it with you in a laptop, because SSDs have higher storage density and are less likely to break from accidental drops or heavy handling.
3) Noise from spinning drives. (Not a concern with a NAS as you can place it wherever you pull a network cable.)
While I understand that it is indeed convenient to keep the files on internal drives the traditional way, I would, just like JoeyJoJo123, really recommend anyone who has more than a few TB of data to go for a NAS.
That would give the added convenience of the following features (if you wish to have them, or if your user needs change):
- A redundant storage system.
- Good options for automatic offsite backups to other NASes or cloud services.
- Allows accessing your files from smartphones, tables on the go.
- Easily setting up your own cloud storage with sync (like your own Dropbox).
- Various media center/HTPC apps.
- Other services like web server etc.
And that is even before mentioning any feature that is handy for multiple users (families or sharing with friends).
If you are worried about data integrity you could consider a NAS which features regular checksums on the filesystem level, such as with ZFS or BTRFS.
Moving away from local storage is a big step. It can sometimes feel like you lose a bit of the control when you're moving your files to a new operating system, but I think that the added features outweigh the inconvenience.
Good to hear that you have a good backup strategy. That would be my other concern with using single large drives of any type.
PeachNCream - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
I would find a way to reduce my local storage needs were I in a situation where I had to find a home for so much data, but to each their own. A NAS is fine if you have a reason to share data between multiple devices and potentially multiple people, but regardless of whether or not a drive is stuffed into a NAS, a desktop, or your laptop there is still a purchase of said storage that must be made regardless. Why add the burden of a NAS when you're only serving files to yourself?Greg100 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
PeachNCream, good point! I do not share anything online, I do not stream and I do not use social media. All my family and friends are welcomed to my living room when we can socialize and watch all my media.Greg100 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
You are right AdditionalPylons about three reasons for putting huge media collections on SSDs:1) video editing
2) moving computer to another building
3) silence
There are couple more, but all three above are important for me.
And yes, ZFS would be nice, if Windows 10 could use it. I do not want too bother with Linux or other exotic OSes, which can handle this. I like simplicity and full control for everything. And If something work for me for years I do not need any new “big step”. Like I said in another post I do not upload to social media, need any internal network, so why complicate myself live? I would like to have everything in one drive in one computer, except backup.
jordanclock - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
The reason you're not going to find what you want is because the vast majority of users, both consumer and enterprise, are going to use HDDs for that use case. There is no benefit to using SSDs unless you frequently pull down many gigabytes of your media at a time. HDDs have better $/GB and better understood failure patterns/rates.Greg100 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
Yes, I found what I want: 7TB+ SSD with 3000MB/s. I just thought, that new QLC from Intel will be cheaper per GB than old TLC from Samsung.Yes there are benefit:
1. Total silence which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis
2. Less heat which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis
3. Less space taken which is important with HDPLEX H5 passive chassis
4. Shock resistant which is important when moving heavy HDPLEX H5 passive chassis
5. Fast editing video files using Adobe Premiere
6. Fast duplicating files using File Explorer
7. Fast checking checksum files using HashCheck (one folder) or SFV Ninja (all folders at once)
8. Fast checking MediaInfo data using PlayTime (all videos at once)
9. Fast Backup
10. Fast and responsive using all other programs, files - so more comfort.
HDDs are only cheaper than SSDs and that’s it.
Failure rate? Backup and frequently checking checksum files with HashCheck or SFV Ninja. I load all checksum files for all my folders in SFV Ninja and with 3000MB/s it is lighting fast - whole disk checked! If something is wrong I have got two more copies of everything.
HStewart - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
I think these drives are intended for large enterprise database servers like SQL Server. For these drives specifically Xeon class machines - Intel only because of chipset requirements.,euler007 - Monday, April 8, 2019 - link
My guess was throwing money and not really needing it. Video, photo, music, a 5400rpm drive would do. smh.abufrejoval - Tuesday, April 2, 2019 - link
I just got myself 4 Samsung 1TB SATA EVOs earlier this year and put them into an Intel software RAID0 to create the 4TB NVME/U.2 I couldn't fit into that machine, because the PCIe slots were alreay max'ed out with an GTX 1060 for Steam streaming, an LSI RAID6 for running the 8x 4TB HDD array and an Aquantia 10Gbit Ethernet card. It's a "desktop" E3 Xeon so 8+4+4 lanes off the CPU and 4 lanes off the PCH is all you get unless you manage to get someone to sell you a motherboard with a PCIe switch, which Avago/Broadcom seems to have priced out of reach to pay for their mergers.And since I cannot see anyone selling M.2 "RAID" adapters with a proper PCIe switch on a budget (or even for real money), I decided to bite the bullet and stick with SATA, where the PCH is essentially a switch, albeit one with a bit of protocol overhead, but lots of maturity and BIOS/OS support.
With the spinning rust hanging off 4 lanes on the CPU side, I get all of the 4 lanes reserved for the PCH to multiplex via SATA among 8 onboard ports, which even 550MB SSDs will saturate before the ports run out.
But even if you're all SSD, using a more modern SAS/SATA RAID[0] controller with a full set of high-capacity SATA SSDs may not be that much worse in terms of performance than a really high-capacity NVMe unit, while you can get a much better deal on capacity/$.
It's not the latency I'd like and NVMe/PCIe switches could provide, but in my case much of the data then goes 10Gbase-T Ethernet, so it's not worth paying top dollar for little practical gain.
Of course it helped that I had 4x and 6x 2.5" SATA enclosures around to fit into the slot where the DVD used to be, because I need the space in the tower to run those 2.5" HDDs in vibe-fixers originally meant for 3,5" drives: No fans required and completely unnoticeable even if they spin and seek.
Just saying that even if U.2 isn't designed for cheap and 8TB NVMe SSDs may not be mainstream enough for a little longer, high capacity SSD can be used for good performance at a relatively flat linear cost scale with SATA and EVO, who also happen to be RELIABLE.
HStewart - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
Are these the same Optane's used in new Dell's that provide 2.7x increase in performance in SQL Server - which I believe treats the database like persistent RAM. I would expect technically if an Application is designed to use would be even more performance. Also noted Samsung is single port transfer rate - these have dual ports and should be twice as fast.I think the Optane drives are in different league than normal SSD's - because of changes required in chipset. Using them as normal SSD is probably under usage.
HStewart - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
Not sure if dual port's could be use in raid 1 like performance - or just used for redundancyIntelUser2000 - Wednesday, April 3, 2019 - link
The slide gives you all that you need to know. Dual ports are for redundancy.Also its the persistent memory version that gives the 2.7x increase. This is the SSD version.