I have a bit of a conundrum. I have many files to access, but need drives in the same room. I find large capacity 3.5" helium drives too noisy to be in the same room, so I prefer 2.5" portable drives, however due to aggressive (likely internal?) power saving modes, they often spin down and it is annoying waiting for them to spin up before data can be accessed again, so.....has anyone employed an SSD cache to deal with such a scenario? I typically access much the same data + SSD is low power draw & zero noise, so I am wondering if an SSD cache would eliminate latency (from spun down drives). What do you think?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Should I use an SSD cache?
- Thread starter Digby
- Start date
How much data do you have? SSD prices are at an all time low. You may be better off just buying a large SSD, or put several in an array.
As for spinning down of disks, in the long run this will lower the life expectancy of the drives. They are made to spin, not to be spun up and down all the time.
As for spinning down of disks, in the long run this will lower the life expectancy of the drives. They are made to spin, not to be spun up and down all the time.
Agreed. You can get a 4TB Samsung SSD for $200, or 8TB for $350.
- Thread Starter
- #4
SSD prices are low, that is true, but still rather expensive for about 6TB worth. I'm hoping the prices become ever cheaper, this idea is just a stopgap for the moment (3-5 years).
Re: the spinning down of disks, I know this is conventional wisdom, but I read a few things more recently (past 10 years or so) recommending computers (and hard drives) be put in standby when not in use, as data seemed to suggest modern equipment was not so fussed about spinning up and down/turning on and off. Who knows?
Re: the spinning down of disks, I know this is conventional wisdom, but I read a few things more recently (past 10 years or so) recommending computers (and hard drives) be put in standby when not in use, as data seemed to suggest modern equipment was not so fussed about spinning up and down/turning on and off. Who knows?
Which is about 2-3 times the price for a HDD of similar size. I can afford it, but this isn't data that demands high speeds, it'd just be nice to access without latency.
Largest 2.5” disk is about 5TB. 8TB SSD is about € 340 vs € 114 for the spinner. The price difference per TB is about factor 2 at the moment. That’s very interesting. Word is that SSD prices will go up for the foreseeable future…
Well what system are you using? TrueNAS, unraid? Just a computer with internal hard drives?
(I'm using a storage NVME drive (thunderbolt 4 enclosure) and a external sata SSD as Backup. Would never go for back to spinning disks even for file storage. SSDs are really cheap enough these days. Last time I used a HDD was when raptor 10.000 where still a thing)
- Thread Starter
- #8
Why is that?
For all my PC and Laptops I use SSD drive (it does not drive, haha) as C: disk. Quiet, fast, no problems. With the 2.5" spinning drives I had always problems after some years. With SSD no problems at all. Also SSD for my music files storage as external USB connected.
- Thread Starter
- #10
Absolutely, as far a system drive is concerned, but I'd rather not cough up the money for storage of stuff that doesn't need high transfer rates. Wondering if a small SSD as a cache (say 128gb to 256gb, I have some already) might give most of the performance without all of the cost.
Just a computer, external 2.5" drives connected via USB3.
ZolaIII
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 4,197
- Likes
- 2,477
Well you can always go with more silent less performance oriented HDD's which spin at lower speed. Like WD Red Pro or Purple. I have 8 TB Red Pro installed with anty vibration pads and I barely ever heard it. Or you can go with SSD's which will be completely silent and much faster for a price of course.
Edit: to answer a question there is a reason why industry abandoned the hybrid drive approach. It whosent all that much performance improving, whose more costly and had higher failure rate. Same can be said for combining them physically by your self.
Anyway what ever path you chose to go pick endurant one's with good track record.
Edit: to answer a question there is a reason why industry abandoned the hybrid drive approach. It whosent all that much performance improving, whose more costly and had higher failure rate. Same can be said for combining them physically by your self.
Anyway what ever path you chose to go pick endurant one's with good track record.
Last edited:
Economics 101: supply and demand
Anyway, how do you envision this cache to work? You’ll need either an external enclosure that supports this out-of-the-box, or some file system that can handle this, like zfs. Some main boards also support some software SSD caching software features and there seem to be some generic solutions out there as well. All will have particular pros and cons regarding caching strategies. So if you go that route l, you’ll need to look into this. Most important feature would be that the main disks actually remain spun down for long enough. That gamble alone is probably worth just buying a bigger SSD right away.
danadam
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 999
- Likes
- 1,562
In the first part of the sentence you quoted he wrote: "I typically access much the same data".
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 844
- Likes
- 643
At what point is it better to have hardrives set to spin down versus staying on?
I have a relatively large library of approximately 20TB, over 4 drives in a 4 bay USB caddy. Each drive can be switched on independently. I only switch them on when I am listening to music and currently have Windows settings such that they don't spin down. I am still unclear as to whether they will last longer this way or whether I am better to set them to spin down. What is the general consensus?
Thanks in advance.
I have a relatively large library of approximately 20TB, over 4 drives in a 4 bay USB caddy. Each drive can be switched on independently. I only switch them on when I am listening to music and currently have Windows settings such that they don't spin down. I am still unclear as to whether they will last longer this way or whether I am better to set them to spin down. What is the general consensus?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
Good point, simple solution. That would work if the noise is at an acceptable level.
I think there is none, really. It’s highly dependent on the model and make of the disk. Historically there were quite a few models out there that were notoriously bad with spinning up and down. I’m not really a fan of spinning down idle disks, but that’s me. I’d rather skip the step and go full SSD.
To give an answer to the original question: If you want a consumer grade turnkey solution, I think QNAP supports different tiers where files are moved to a slower tier if not accessed within certain time.
But as others said, SSDs are cheap now. I’m using restic to backup 4 SSDs (in a Raid01+0) nightly to a disk drive and AWS Intelligent Tiering (FLAC files pretty much directly to dirt cheap S3 Glacier).
But as others said, SSDs are cheap now. I’m using restic to backup 4 SSDs (in a Raid
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #20
Yes, I think that might be the answer. I will try that now and see if things improve. The noise of 2.5" hard drives is negligible and power savings (when putting to sleep) minimal, so this might well be the best option.
It is not so much need, but it is easier/cheaper. They are only connected to one computer, so if located elsewhere I would need to buy a NAS or use another computer, then I might have to deal with noise elsewhere, run cables, more electricity costs....big hassle, for my scenario.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
