[SOLVED] How is WD (Red and Black) SSD and NVMe SSD compared with Samsung's and Crucial's MX?

[modeonoff]

Hi, I am looking for SSD to build a dual-boot PC and NAS. I only use the NAS side for backup of another PC and samba file sharing with other devices. Don't plan to turn it on 24/7. In terms of reliability and gullibility for such use case, how are these SSD compared?

 

[randyh121]

In terms of realiability and dualibility, how are they compared?

Samsung have higher TBW. So longer lifespans, if you are talking tech spec wise.

 

[modeonoff]

Samsung have higher TBW. So longer lifespans, if you are talking tech spec wise.

Thanks. I just updated my original post while you were replying.

What do you think in terms occasionally-used NAS environment? Samsung does not have 4TB NVMe SSD, only 2.5" SATA SSD. WD Black has 4TB but I have not used their SSD before.

 

[randyh121]

Thanks. I just updated my original post while you were replying.

What do you think in terms occasionally-used NAS environment?

Personally I'd never use a NVMe drive in any sort of NAS or mass storage environment. I've had them fail much to often compared to SATA SSD's (Infact just had another NVMe drive fail today at work, unrecoverable and all the employees data gone.). And when they fail, there is nothing you can do to recover the data most of the time.
For the NAS, go with Samsung EVO SATA SSD's.
For a boot drive that does not have mass storage, go with a NVMe drive. Samsung has longer lifespans, so I'd go with that as well.

 

[Lafong]

I've heard nothing about formal studies of SSD life expectancy if they are used in a normal fashion. Only anecdotes and personal experiences.

There was a well known torture test at least 10 years ago that went on for quite a while where a number of SSDs were subjected to petabyte writing levels.....far beyond TBW ratings. I can't recall the results or whether any brand/model was clearly superior, but this was so long ago as to mean little today...pre NVMe. Quite possible the results were random enough that no conclusions could be drawn.

Take your pick; cross your fingers; keep telling yourself TBW is meaningful for your use case if necessary, consider price and return privileges, etc. For occasional use, you aren't likely to approach the TBW anyway.

 

[randyh121]

He's right about that as well. The majority of people will not bypass the TBW limit stated by the manufacturer. Personally I download a lot of <Mod Edit> constantly so its important for me, but for others its probably not going to matter.
That being said what you are going to have to worry about is the reliability of the device.

 

[modeonoff]

Personally I'd never use a NVMe drive in any sort of NAS or mass storage environment. I've had them fail much to often compared to SATA SSD's (Infact just had another NVMe drive fail today at work, unrecoverable and all the employees data gone.). And when they fail, there is nothing you can do to recover the data most of the time.
For the NAS, go with Samsung EVO SATA SSD's.
For a boot drive that does not have mass storage, go with a NVMe drive. Samsung has longer lifespans, so I'd go with that as well.

Are you using DIY NAS or those Synology/QNAP NAS?

By using NVMe for boot drive, do you mean put a NVMe SSD and a 2.5" SATA SSD. Install the NAS OS on the NVMe and assign the SATA SSD has the drive for backup, file sharing?

Any of you see any potential issue of setting up a dual boot PC (e.g. Windows and NAS OS )?

On my old PC, I have one NVMe for Windows and one NVMe for Linux.

 

[USAFRet]

Hi, I am looking for SSD to build a dual-boot PC and NAS. I only use the NAS side for backup of another PC and samba file sharing with other devices. Don't plan to turn it on 24/7. In terms of reliability and gullibility for such use case, how are these SSD compared?

There is ZERO need to use an NVMe for this purpose.
The "OMG Faster!!" is completely lost in the overall connection. LAN or USB.

I have a Seagate Ironwolf 480GB SATA II as the system drive in my QNAP.
It exists, because I won it in a contest.

Connecting to the NAS over a standard gigabit LAN, no difference vs connecting to any of the spinning HDDs in the NAS.

 

[USAFRet]

Any of you see any potential issue of setting up a dual boot PC (e.g. Windows and NAS OS )?

Yes.

Dualboot means running only one OS at a time.
Either Windows OR the NAS.

Your "NAS" should be a physically separate box, accessible from any system in the house.

 

[modeonoff]

Thanks for pointing that out. I overlooked it.

Is it a bad idea to run NAS OS under a virtual machine? I suppose due to the complex nature of virtualization, it may not be a good idea.
Building a Raptor Lake box with ECC RAM to only run ZFS based TrueNAS may be a waste of money.

Sounds like I should just buy a NAS or forget about it completely.

 

[USAFRet]

Thanks for pointing that out. I overlooked it.

Is it a bad idea to run NAS OS under a virtual machine? I suppose due to the complex nature of virtualization, it may not be a good idea.
Building a Raptor Lake box with ECC RAM to only run ZFS based TrueNAS may be a waste of money.

Sounds like I should just buy a NAS or forget about it completely.

A NAS running as a VM doesn't really serve much purpose.
It is entirely dependent on the host system.

A NAS should be a standalone system, accessible to any system in the house.
Network Attached Storage

 

[modeonoff]

Thanks