This is a low-end community. I love spinning disks. I appreciate spinning disks. All my backups are on spinning disks for long-term storage.
SSD and NVMe are for high-end and high-load systems. I don't want them nor need them. For some reason though providers are switching to this kind of storage, forgetting that we want the price as low as possible.
@root said:
This is a low-end community. I love spinning disks. I appreciate spinning disks. All my backups are on spinning disks for long-term storage.
SSD and NVMe are for high-end and high-load systems. I don't want them nor need them. For some reason though providers are switching to this kind of storage, forgetting that we want the price as low as possible.
Yep. SSDs are great for when you need to access a lot of small files at once. For larger files, SSD and HDDs are almost same. Since most applications are memory cached, storage doesn't matter for running most apps.
So cheaper HDDs are better. Unless your want highend solutions, stick to HDDs written SSDs as premium option.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
mmm disk go weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I have a 18yo HDD, still works. Wouldn't bet my life savings on it, but yeah, they do run and get the job pretty much done.
SSDs are more of a I WANT SPEED kinda thing, like if you are running something like a Jellyfin server, or something that needs a lot of IO, go with SSD. But if you just have stuff thats accessed once in a while or is relatively lightweight (say, an uptime monitor), a HDD does just as fine and can possibly be more economic than an SSD.
HDDs are relatively reliable on the long run, unless you get dust in it, then bye bye.
@Otus9051 said:
I have a 18yo HDD, still works. Wouldn't bet my life savings on it, but yeah, they do run and get the job pretty much done.
I never would trust a hard drive with more then 5 years of activity (run time). Then again, for my "mission critical" data, i usually have 3 copies with at least 1 fully offline backup. Paranoid? What's that? Can eat?
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
@vitobotta said:
What is the average life of HDDs vs NVMEs these days?
In power-on-days or in bytes written? Running in a datacenter or bike-mounted?
I have had more flash-based storage devices die on me than rust-based devices, but by weight the balance swings in favour of the dead HDDs.
The average life of the data itself was better on the flash though: by that time I could afford some form of backup, whereas in the ages of dying disks it was by the grace of the ticking zombie period that I could rescue data (whereas flash does not have the time bomb feature, in my experience)
Comments
It all depends on how much disk i/o your hosted service needs
VPS providers to check out:
This is a low-end community. I love spinning disks. I appreciate spinning disks. All my backups are on spinning disks for long-term storage.
SSD and NVMe are for high-end and high-load systems. I don't want them nor need them. For some reason though providers are switching to this kind of storage, forgetting that we want the price as low as possible.
How are you... online?
Yep. SSDs are great for when you need to access a lot of small files at once. For larger files, SSD and HDDs are almost same. Since most applications are memory cached, storage doesn't matter for running most apps.
So cheaper HDDs are better. Unless your want highend solutions, stick to HDDs written SSDs as premium option.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
mmm disk go weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I have a 18yo HDD, still works. Wouldn't bet my life savings on it, but yeah, they do run and get the job pretty much done.
SSDs are more of a I WANT SPEED kinda thing, like if you are running something like a Jellyfin server, or something that needs a lot of IO, go with SSD. But if you just have stuff thats accessed once in a while or is relatively lightweight (say, an uptime monitor), a HDD does just as fine and can possibly be more economic than an SSD.
HDDs are relatively reliable on the long run, unless you get dust in it, then bye bye.
youtube.com/watch?v=k1BneeJTDcU
All of my VMs: https://nodecheck.net/s/otusibrc/
I run tons of services on spinning disks.
1. Vaultwarden
2. Jellyfin
3. Audiobookshelf
4. All the *arr services. Seriously, all of them
5. Ubooquity
6. Kavita
7. Sabnzbd
8. qBittorrent
9. Joplin
10. Hammond
11. Linkwarden
12. Jackett
13. Healthchecks.io
14. TTRSS
15. Uptime-Kuma
16. Trashcan
17. Headscale
I never would trust a hard drive with more then 5 years of activity (run time). Then again, for my "mission critical" data, i usually have 3 copies with at least 1 fully offline backup. Paranoid? What's that? Can eat?
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
I would never trust anyone that doesn't know the difference between then & than!
It wisnae me! A big boy done it and ran away.
NVMe2G for life! until death (the end is nigh)
Damn! Not again!
I guess it's time to change my signature to "Pardon my English"
Just remember, in English, the following makes perfect sense:
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
So far the server has been working great! I really didn't think that HDDs could be still be this decent on servers these days
404 Error: Signature Not Found
Good to hear. Indeed Any Process running on Memory not disk.
DRIVES will beet FLASH at endurance any day of the week.
Consumer NVME/SSD will fry out within months of heavy WRITE.
Data center NVME/SSD stuff is extremely expensive even Used, so will stick for Drives for the moment for large storage ( 20TB+ )
SAS will be your friend.
in spinning rust.
Host-C - VPS Services Provider - AS211462
"If there is no struggle there is no progress"
With servers it is as with cats: who would not want a content server?
What is the average life of HDDs vs NVMEs these days?
404 Error: Signature Not Found
Home use, or Hosting use, it is a big difference
Hosting Conditions:
For example, a NVME Premium Brand, 4 TB, wear out to 50% in 6 months.And there were no abuses on the drive. ( Samsung, Kingston )
Datacenter SSD, in raid 10, not even 1% in 1 year ( Kingston DC500R ), Kioxia SAS SSD well, still at 99% life after years of use.
Drives, heh, we still have a NetApp Shelf with FiberChannel Drives, 450GB at 15.000 RPM, all good, 0 bad.
Host-C - VPS Services Provider - AS211462
"If there is no struggle there is no progress"
In power-on-days or in bytes written? Running in a datacenter or bike-mounted?
I have had more flash-based storage devices die on me than rust-based devices, but by weight the balance swings in favour of the dead HDDs.
The average life of the data itself was better on the flash though: by that time I could afford some form of backup, whereas in the ages of dying disks it was by the grace of the ticking zombie period that I could rescue data (whereas flash does not have the time bomb feature, in my experience)
But weren't SSDs in general supposed to last longer?
404 Error: Signature Not Found