[SOLVED] Please help me choose between 3 specific SSD/HDD models for an "office tasks + NAS" machine ?

[PiffPuff]

Hi,

Need your kindest advice regarding which storage should I choose in terms of reliability. This machine will serve as the office one, but it will also run for 10-14h a day for the P2P file exchange activity, so I've chosen several storage solutions which are kinda NAS-oriented.

Prices are in €, but think of them as of $ if you're from the U.S. (not a huge difference). Tech spec is in German, but I guess no translation is needed for obvious SSD/HDD characteristics (click Alle Details button to expand the spec sheet):

SSD Western Digital Red SA500 1Tb (€90)

HDD (CMR!) Western Digital Black 1Tb (€66)

HDD (SMR) Western Digital Blue 2Tb (€67)

My thoughts: on the one hand WD Blue seems to be the most tempting due to its capacity, but it's SMR. While I'm not gonna have my machine running 24/7, still AFAIK CMR HDDs are more reliable and hence - are recommended for heavy use scenarios. So hypothetically WD Black's reliability (CMR) will be higher (at a x2 price tag). SSD is the most expensive (not a critical budget for me though), but will it outstand compared to WD Black, and where exactly?

Thank you!

 

[Lafong]

Price difference is 25 euros at most and you say cost is not critical.

I'd go for the SSD every time, unless there are specific known issues against that WD Red.

Why forego the speed advantage if cost is not a factor?

You emphasize reliability, but that is anyone's guess.

I suppose you could concoct a reason to choose HDD, but that would be an unusual case.

 

[fzabkar]

I would choose an SSD over a HDD, and I would choose a 3.5" HDD over a 2.5" HDD, and I would choose CMR over SMR.

Today's 2.5" HDDs, especially those made by Seagate and WD, are very flimsy, so I would avoid them if at all possible.

 

[USAFRet]

SSD no question.
1 or 2TB.

 

[SkyNetRising]

You can write only 600TB to that SSD.
This is unsuitable for P2P workloads.

Get a CMR mechanical HDD.

 

[PiffPuff]

Thank you guys! Your opinions slightly differ, so here are some comments which may help to make the final decision:

I would choose a 3.5" HDD over a 2.5" HDD

Me too, but my small form-factor PC case supports only 2.5". Bummer.

Why forego the speed advantage if cost is not a factor?

I suppose you could concoct a reason to choose HDD, but that would be an unusual case.

I'm not intentionally avoiding higher speeds, I just don't need them much for my scenario: office work, Plex transcoding, media streaming. No benefit from SSD in such kinda workloads (AFAIK), right? However, if SSDs have other benefits, which are more important for me (e.g., reliability) - I will definitely prefer SSD over HDD.

Today's 2.5" HDDs, especially those made by Seagate and WD, are very flimsy, so I would avoid them if at all possible.

You can write only 600TB to that SSD.
This is unsuitable for P2P workloads.
Get a CMR mechanical HDD.

I'm not a Pro seeder so size-wise 1Tb will be OK for me. But guys, are these all 2.5" size HDDs which quality sucks, or only of those made by SG/WD?
I mean, we've been living with HDDs for decades somehow, right? Not that I don't understand the benefits of SSDs (silence, speed, no mech. parts, etc.), but this disk is supposed to be my secondary one (OS/app disk [aka "main"] will be a M.2 NVMe), supposed for tasks, where speed-wise both HDD and SSD are fine.

So long story short: speed doesn't matter, 1Tb size is OK, but of course (obvious, uh?) 2Tb will be better. However, if longevity/reliability-wise SSD is really better, I'd choose it over HDD.

Final verdict?

 

[SkyNetRising]

So long story short: speed doesn't matter, 1Tb size is OK, but of course (obvious, uh?) 2Tb will be better. However, if longevity/reliability-wise SSD is really better, I'd choose it over HDD.
Final verdict?

SSDs have finite writes.
If you're using if for P2P (writing to it constantly), it will wear out much faster than in normal use.

 

[USAFRet]

I'm not a Pro seeder so size-wise 1Tb will be OK for me. But guys, are these all 2.5" size HDDs which quality sucks, or only of those made by SG/WD?
I mean, we've been living with HDDs for decades somehow, right? Not that I don't understand the benefits of SSDs (silence, speed, no mech. parts, etc.), but this disk is supposed to be my secondary one (OS/app disk [aka "main"] will be a M.2 NVMe), supposed for tasks, where speed-wise both HDD and SSD are fine.

So long story short: speed doesn't matter, 1Tb size is OK, but of course (obvious, uh?) 2Tb will be better. However, if longevity/reliability-wise SSD is really better, I'd choose it over HDD.

Final verdict?

I didn't pick up on the seeding thing earlier.

Scratch the SSD, go with the CMR HDD.

 

[PiffPuff]

Got, it, thank you! Finally, if seeding is eliminated from the use scenario, then what - SSD or HDD?
@fzabkar says 2.5 HDDs have lousy quality today...

I didn't pick up on the seeding thing earlier.
Scratch the SSD, go with the CMR HDD.

By the way, WD Red SSD has a "NAS" written on it, so I doubt it's not adapted to frequent read/write cycles, uh?

 

[USAFRet]

Got, it, thank you! Finally, if seeding is eliminated from the use scenario, then what - SSD or HDD?
@fzabkar says 2.5 HDDs have lousy quality today...



By the way, WD Red SSD has a "NAS" written on it, so I doubt it's not adapted to frequent read/write cycles, uh?

If no P2P seeding, the SSD.

 

[PiffPuff]

Got it, thank you!