PDA

View Full Version : NAS SSD Drive...?



mmmadman
2015-03-18, 06:24
Hi all

Do many of you use SSD drives in your NAS, are they much better than a normal hard drive, apart from the noise and reliability benefits...?

Cheers...

poing
2015-03-18, 08:09
I think for a normal consumer/prosumer/small office usage, the benefits are negligible. Or do you have 10 Gb Ethernet devices at home??

mmmadman
2015-03-18, 08:27
Thanks poing, no it's purely for music files for my SBT, only need upto 1TB. I'm in the process of choosing a NAS drive. I just thought an SSD would be more reliable and quieter, not sure if faster or not, this is all new to me so not got a clue...!!!

Any tips/recommendations on a NAS drive...?

Cheers...

get.amped
2015-03-18, 09:22
I don't think you will see any real performance gain on the music storage side during normal operations. But an SSD for the OS and LMS application and database provides a dramatic improvement, particularly on Windows based systems.

mooblie
2015-03-18, 10:38
I guess the reason that people are suggesting you won't see much/any speed benefits from an SSD in a NAS is that the music server will (probably?) be connected to your music player by 100Mbps or maybe 1Gbps Ethernet (and you won't reach those nominal transfer speeds anyway: probably reaching only half the headline speed). However, you don't need speed for music playback do you?

Anyway:
quieter: yes,
faster: not necessary,
costlier: yes,
more reliable: ??
uses less power: possibly.

(If you do end up with a 3.5" spinner - WD Red range are recommended for NASes.)

epoch1970
2015-03-19, 10:41
Seek times are radically different between rotating drives and SSD. If you're in the habit of scanning your DB every day or zapping playlists on a whim then an SSD could make a difference.
If you write/erase a lot on your drives then you can wear an SSD down, although it is every unlikely. Usually the endurance is given in volume of data written to the SSD drive, in Tera or Peta-Bytes. That is, filling the drive and erasing it thousands of times over.
Spinning drives do have reliability issues. These days I tend to replace drives every 2 years. A brand is no guarantee. Here is some recent reliability data on spinning drives :
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/
https://www.backblaze.com/hard-drive-test-data.html

HTH

atrocity
2015-03-19, 13:56
These days I tend to replace drives every 2 years. A brand is no guarantee.

I just had to replace a Buffalo NAS after less than a year and a half. Sure glad I back everything up!

poing
2015-03-20, 01:45
However, you don't need speed for music playback do you?

Exactly. Disk I/O is not a bottleneck during playback, even if three or four devices are playing simultaneously.



more reliable: ??
uses less power: possibly.

Probably no more reliable, although the points of failure of an SSD are somewhat different. E.g., it is more robust than a hard disk against mechanical impact, but less reliable when it comes to firmware (there are numerous cases where faulty SSD firmware caused data loss).

Power consumption may be lower or higher (some modern SSDs are very power-hungry).



(If you do end up with a 3.5" spinner - WD Red range are recommended for NASes.)
I second that.


Seek times are radically different between rotating drives and SSD. If you're in the habit of scanning your DB every day or zapping playlists on a whim then an SSD could make a difference.

Rescans are pretty fast. (Unless, for some strange reason, you need complete rescans regularly.) And besides, why not schedule rescans for when you are sleeping or at work?



If you write/erase a lot on your drives then you can wear an SSD down, although it is every unlikely.

Very unlikely indeed. The amount of data is just way too low if music is stored on the SSD. Wearing out the flash memory is even less likely than in other workloads (e.g., OS on the SSD, a SQL database on the SSD).



Spinning drives do have reliability issues. These days I tend to replace drives every 2 years.

What a huge waste of resources. The chance that a drive dies within the next minute is not much different for a two-year old drive than for a brand-new drive. Even after four or five years of usage, HDD failure rates increase only modestly.

Backup is essential. Replacement of perfectly good drives is not a backup strategy. It's also not a strategy to guarantee uptime (once again, failure rates of brand-new HDDs aren't that much lower). Besides, replacement of HDDs will not protect you against user errors (e.g., accidental deletions of data), malware, or the like.

If you need 24/7 uptime, go for a RAID (replace drives when they fail or when it's time to upgrade the entire RAID). But RAID is no backup, either. For backup purposes, store the data regularly, ideally keeping at least one backup off-line and off-site.

epoch1970
2015-03-20, 06:57
What a huge waste of resources. The chance that a drive dies within the next minute is not much different for a two-year old drive than for a brand-new drive. Even after four or five years of usage, HDD failure rates increase only modestly.
If you're speaking of experience, you are much more lucky than I am.

BTW, the market has shrinked to 3 companies producing 3.5" HDDs: WD, Seagate and Toshiba (HGST)

Edit: my drives current status. 2TB drives.
sudo mysmartctl.pl
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/0-sas_A-main_up] (sdc) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W08W4SA] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|25|18099 2y, 00mo, 24d, 03h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/1-sas_A-main_up] (sdi) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W07P80A] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|25|17582 2y, 00mo, 02d, 14h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/2-sas_A-main_up] (sdj) -> Device (make|model|sn): [TOSHIBA|DT01ACA200|1328JM2AS] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|25|14930 1y, 08mo, 17d, 02h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/3-sas_A-main_up] (sdk) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W086HKA] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|17531 2y, 00mo, 00d, 11h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/4-sas_B-main_lo] (sdl) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W08685A] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|25|18143 2y, 00mo, 25d, 23h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/5-sas_B-main_lo] (sdd) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W07PEGA] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|17517 1y, 12mo, 04d, 21h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/6-sas_B-main_lo] (sde) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W0867BA] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|18115 2y, 00mo, 24d, 19h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/7-sas_B-main_lo] (sdf) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W086GJA] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|18129 2y, 00mo, 25d, 09h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/8-sas_B-flexbay] (sdg) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W086G0A] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|17558 2y, 00mo, 01d, 14h]
[/dev/disk/zpool-sas6ir/9-sas_B-flexbay] (sdh) -> Device (make|model|sn): [Hitachi|HDS723020BLE640|MS77215W08YP9A] - SMART (health|temp|hours): [ok|26|17557 2y, 00mo, 01d, 13h]

poing
2015-03-20, 11:09
If you're speaking of experience, you are much more lucky than I am.
No, I'm not speaking of personal experience. I don't personal experience is useful, as the sample size of an individual consumer is usually way too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

There are decent LARGE studies of storage device reliability. I'd rather look at such data than at the data of any single consumer. You previously mentioned Backblaze. Indeed, they have some interesting studies to look at (even though their hard drives have a bit of a different workload than a consumer NAS running LMS).

A short side note on the S.M.A.R.T. data you showed: S.M.A.R.T. is not a very accurate indicator of upcoming drive failures. (You may be aware of that; I just wanted to mention it in case you weren't.)

d6jg
2015-03-25, 16:02
I see zero benefit in SSD over normal HD in an LMS environment. You don't write very often and read times aren't critical. The extra cost of SSD can't be justified at present.
That's not to say things won't change in favour of SSD but as of today a Raid 1 plus scenario of normal HD seems perfectly acceptable to me (with regular backup).

paulster
2015-03-26, 20:20
For LMS on NAS I'd recommend WD Red drives in a RAID 5 configuration. The drives are quiet (way, way quieter than the Seagates I made the mistake of trying a few years ago), low power, and plenty fast enough for heavyweight music and HD video streaming. Plus RAID 5 gives you great read performance. If you were doing heavy writes then I'd go for RAID 0+1, but for most things read-related RAID 5 is great. And when you inevitably lose a drive you'll still be protected with no data loss.

I use an SSD for my LMS database and I can scan 20,000 tracks for updates in less than 30s on a Celeron-powered LMS server with a gigabit connection to the NAS.

And I like Synology for the NAS devices themselves.

poing
2015-03-27, 01:03
I use an SSD for my LMS database and I can scan 20,000 tracks for updates in less than 30s on a Celeron-powered LMS server with a gigabit connection to the NAS.

Just as a comparison: I scan 10k tracks for updates in less than 20s on a Marvell Kirkwood processor, no SSD.

d6jg
2015-03-27, 08:17
For LMS on NAS I'd recommend WD Red drives in a RAID 5 configuration. The drives are quiet (way, way quieter than the Seagates I made the mistake of trying a few years ago), low power, and plenty fast enough for heavyweight music and HD video streaming. Plus RAID 5 gives you great read performance. If you were doing heavy writes then I'd go for RAID 0+1, but for most things read-related RAID 5 is great. And when you inevitably lose a drive you'll still be protected with no data loss.

I use an SSD for my LMS database and I can scan 20,000 tracks for updates in less than 30s on a Celeron-powered LMS server with a gigabit connection to the NAS.

And I like Synology for the NAS devices themselves.

That's pretty much exactly as I have it except I haven't (at this stage) opted for an SSD drive in my Vortexbox LMS which is an old Dell Poweredge Server with a Celeron 3.33Ghz (single core) processor and 4gb RAM. The music remains on my QNAP 4bay NAS (Raid 5) which is mounted on the Vortexbox LMS via NFS rather than Samba. The scan time (15,000 tracks) is 35 seconds. I don't see any need to improve on that at present. I run 4 Squeezeboxes and a couple of software players concurrently with no issue. I chose to install Vortexbox as I was in need of re-ripping a high number of CDs - stupidly chose 320Kbps MP3 as my standard some years ago when I only had a single drive QNAP.

I did have LMS running on the 4bay QNAP itself until fairly recently and the scan time was more than double the existing arrangement. It did however cope with the same number of devices OK. All of the kit is in a proper rack away from prying eyes and fingers so noise and power issues are dealt with.

SilverRS8
2015-03-28, 11:26
For music streaming there is absolutly no need to go for the SSD scenario unless indeed like has been said before you want very fast scanning which I personally do only occasionally. Either I do a search for new tracks scan or I browse to the folder with new files and LMS will automatically add only the new files discovered in that folder.

If you would do the Math; A flac file may be 50MB, If your SB is connected via 802.11n wifi (max 300mbps) and half the bandwidth would be used because of signal strength that you can stream using a 18,75 MB/s speed. That would mean that in less than 3 sec the whole flac file could be send to the SB.

So 802.11n should be more than enough first of all and its 100Mb ethernet counterpart also. The throughput of spinning harddrives is I believe somewhere in the orders of 90Mb/s so also more than efficient.

read a post here on NAS backups; I have installed the crashplan client on my NAS and everything is backed up to the cloud because a NAS may protect you from a single harddrive failure but not from fires and theft. You can restore from any given point in time. Had to use it a few times already. Money well spend.

poing
2015-04-01, 14:25
The claim that an SSD allows for very fast scanning is highly debatable.***

LMS and its database are gonna fit into RAM on many setups. As RAM is faster than an SSD, the SSD hardly matters. And music collections are usually not on an SSD, so again the presence of an SSD doesn't make a difference.

---

*** Obviously, one can measure this stuff, too. I'd like to see some numbers backing up the claim that an SSD speeds up things.

mherger
2015-04-01, 14:40
> LMS and its database are gonna fit into RAM on many setups. As RAM is

True, if you're running 7.9 and enable the "maximum memory" option. But
not so much with older versions.

--

Michael

Roland0
2015-04-01, 15:32
The claim that an SSD allows for very fast scanning is highly debatable.***
*** Obviously, one can measure this stuff, too. I'd like to see some numbers backing up the claim that an SSD speeds up things.

See here (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?99783-LMS-scan-performance)



LMS and its database are gonna fit into RAM on many setups. As RAM is faster than an SSD, the SSD hardly matters.

Even if this is the case, there are lots of writes to the DB during the scan, which will be written to the storage in certain intervals (Note that LMS 7.9 has significant improvements in this area, resulting in lower scan times)

poing
2015-04-01, 21:36
See here (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?99783-LMS-scan-performance)

Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that thread. One should note that is for FULL scans which, to me, seem hardly necessary to do regularly. Do you expect similar improvement for regular (i.e., update) scans?

Lastly, and most importantly, I don't fully understand why people care about scan performance at all. Why don't people schedule full scans for times you don't need to access the system? Full scans are necessary infrequently anyway. Instead, if all you did was adding a few albums to your collection which you want to listen to right away, all that's required is an update scans. And, from all setups I've seen thus far, update scans are pretty fast.

In summary, I think spending time and money towards improving scan time give you little bang for your buck.

mherger
2015-04-01, 23:57
> Thanks for sharing this, I hadn't seen that thread. One should note that
> is for FULL scans which, to me, seem hardly necessary to do regularly.
> Do you expect similar improvement for regular (i.e., update) scans?

Yes, update scans did improve as well, at least when running the
external scanner (which in 7.9 is true most of the time).

> Lastly, and most importantly, I don't fully understand why people care
> about scan performance at all. Why don't people schedule full scans for
> times you don't need to access the system?

Because if your system takes 14h for a full scan (as mentioned in that
other thread), then it's hard to find that time. And because I want to
run the scan NOW, and I want it do be done NOW, too :-).

> In summary, I think spending time and money towards improving scan time
> give you little bang for your buck.

Now comes the interesting question: where would you like to see the
bucks spent?

--

Michael

DJanGo
2015-04-02, 02:11
Now comes the interesting question: where would you like to see the
bucks spent?
Michael

I would spend my bucks/time to clean up the tags, remove idv1 / ape and so on.