Recommendations for SLOWEST SSD's

[Saracen999]

Okay, I guess that warrrants an explanation.

I want an SSD (maybe 2) in the 1TB to 2TB range for a NAS. As the limitation is around 1000Mb/sec for the PCIe lane it/they will be in, high-speed SSDs are irrelevant, as the bottleneck is the PCIe lane speed.

They're also intended for minimal write amounts but lotsa reading.

Thus, capacity and cost is much more important to me (this time) than either speed or annual write-rates.

I'm thinking Crucual P3. Anyone got a better suggestion?


EDIT - Oh, I should have said .... NVMe SSD's.

[AGTDenton]

The Kingston NV1 has a slightly higher TBW, when comparing the 1TB models, over the Crucial but it's really not a significant number especially when it's £18 more than the Crucial and only has a 3 year warranty.

I just found this Kioxia (Toshiba), at £10 less than the Crucial but a whopping 400TBW! Could be worth sacrificing the 5 years Warranty...
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/1tb-...350k-400k-iops

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Crucial P3 is one of the most efficient NVME SSDs ATM - I have one in a laptop which won't see huge amounts of writing to and £65 for 2TB of storage was cheap.

[badass]

Okay, I guess that warrrants an explanation.

I want an SSD (maybe 2) in the 1TB to 2TB range for a NAS. As the limitation is around 1000Mb/sec for the PCIe lane it/they will be in, high-speed SSDs are irrelevant, as the bottleneck is the PCIe lane speed.

They're also intended for minimal write amounts but lotsa reading.

Thus, capacity and cost is much more important to me (this time) than either speed or annual write-rates.

I'm thinking Crucual P3. Anyone got a better suggestion?


EDIT - Oh, I should have said .... NVMe SSD's.

You say minimal write but lots of reading. I presume you're looking to size the SSD's to cover either the entirety or the vast majority of your "hot" data - i.e. only very occasional access to the spinning rust backing them? If any spinning rust at all?

I only ask because if you are using SSD's to accelerate HDD access there are certain cases where the writes to the SSD are MORE than to the HDD backing them!

[Saracen999]

You say minimal write but lots of reading. I presume you're looking to size the SSD's to cover either the entirety or the vast majority of your "hot" data - i.e. only very occasional access to the spinning rust backing them? If any spinning rust at all?

I only ask because if you are using SSD's to accelerate HDD access there are certain cases where the writes to the SSD are MORE than to the HDD backing them!

The 'master' data, if you like, is on HDD, specifcally on a NAS. But the usage case I have in mind here is for fast access for data types that, once created and stored, don't change. It's almost a WORM situation. An example is digitised CDs, some photos, etc.

What I'm not talking about is any formalised caching i.e. I will stipulate manually whether to access the SSD version (in both R and W) or go to the HDD version, not rely on built-in caching or tiering.

So, for instance, any newly created FLACs will get added to the HDD version, and in some cases, to the SSD version as well. So yes, it's a form of HDD acceleration, though that's not the only reason, but the write side of it occurs only when I explicitly choose the SSD, not under any algorithm.

[Iota]

I honestly don't think you can go wrong with choosing Crucial, I'm still using some MX500 drives donkeys years later with zero issues, I doubt their NVMe drives perform worse in terms of reliability and endurance.

[Percy1983]

I honestly don't think you can go wrong with choosing Crucial, I'm still using some MX500 drives donkeys years later with zero issues, I doubt their NVMe drives perform worse in terms of reliability and endurance.

I am still running a crucial M4 64gb, its now the TV buffer in my HTPC so its basically always writing when are watching TV. Its fast enough for the job and of course is saving my newer nvme boot or mechanical storage all those temp files.

[Saracen999]

I honestly don't think you can go wrong with choosing Crucial, I'm still using some MX500 drives donkeys years later with zero issues, I doubt their NVMe drives perform worse in terms of reliability and endurance.

The reliability and endurance thing is complex, innit? For SSD's in a NAS, I can think of seveal different ways they can be used, including direct storage, in a cache (wheter read or write), or in a somewhat more complex 'tiered' environment, along with HDDs. All are valied, but tthe way they'll be used vary hugely, and I suspect, the choice of drive varies too, For what I intend, it'll be far closer to a WORM scenario (through write rarel, read many is a close analogy). It's the polar opposit to a caching system where the NAS is constantly changig what's in a cache depending on some algorithm.

For that reason, reliability (within reason) or endurance aren't high up my priority list. I mean, I don't want junk 'cos it's a tiny bit cheaper, but I don't need the level of read/write resilience that een a laptop or desktp drive typically might, and if that saves a usefuk sum, great.

I have no problem with Crucial, and indeed, still have a couple of tiddlers (128MB, I think) in use. Currently, I have my eye on a couple of 2TB Kyoxia's that are about 20% cheaper than the Crucials, if with a lower speed (but still fast enough) and lower rated write level.

I haven't ordered yet, but that's the current thinking.

[Iota]

Currently, I have my eye on a couple of 2TB Kyoxia's that are about 20% cheaper than the Crucials, if with a lower speed (but still fast enough) and lower rated write level.

I haven't ordered yet, but that's the current thinking.

I haven't used Toshiba since .... very early 2000's, and that was of the spinning rust variety, which sadly were not reliable in a Raid 0 scenario. No idea how good they are now, I think it's all a case of much of muchness (within reason).

[Saracen999]

I haven't used Toshiba since .... very early 2000's, and that was of the spinning rust variety, which sadly were not reliable in a Raid 0 scenario. No idea how good they are now, I think it's all a case of much of muchness (within reason).

My thinking is that in the absence of a specific reason to avoid either a company, or a model range, I'm a bit too far out of touch to know what's currently hot, and not.

For instance, I used Seagate for quite a while (and even met Finis Conner, at the Conner facility in San Francisco, some years back, just before they folded Conner Peripherals back into Seagate) but then had a couple of iffy drives. So, I ended up on WD, and have several WD external drives and a NAS populated with WD Ultrastars .... at which point, WD then pulled their SMR "trick" with the Red NAS drives, and that left me well unimpressed, even though I wasn't directly affected.

Scroll forward to now, and I'm after four 18TB drives, and, well, it's pretty much Seagte, WD or Toshiba. My current likely option is Toshiba (MG09 drives). Why? Well, they're not going into a NAS that's going to be heavily loaded, so it's not going to be pushed hard. And right now, they're very competitively priced. They're about £80 per drive cheaper than the equivalent WD Ultrastars and, sure, given good reason I'll stump up the extra £320 for the WDs but so far, I haven't found good reason. There is a Seagte EXOS drive that's a decent compromise, price-wise, too.

Of course, if anyone has good reason to advise against the Tosh drives, please give me a slap to wake me up, and tell me. But if not, then .... well, Kioxia seem to be a decent companion given the "slowest" bit of my specs.

I just don't know enough, and have seen examples of bad drives from both Seagate and WD, which makes me reluctant to ignore the Tosh without good reason. Sooner or later, I have to fish or cut bait, 'cos the empty NAS is sitting here, empty and feeling unloved.

[Joko__2]

Given your specific requirements for a NAS setup with minimal write amounts but frequent reading, focusing on capacity and cost over speed and write rates makes sense. Here are some recommendations for NVMe SSDs in the 1TB to 2TB range that prioritize capacity and affordability:

Crucial P2: While you mentioned the Crucial P3, the P2 series also offers good value for capacity-focused users. It provides reliable performance at a lower cost compared to high-end NVMe SSDs.

WD Blue SN550: Western Digital's Blue series SSDs offer competitive pricing and solid performance for everyday computing tasks. The SN550 model offers good capacity options and is suitable for your NAS usage scenario.

Kingston A2000: Kingston's A2000 SSDs provide a balance of performance, capacity, and affordability. They offer NVMe speeds at a reasonable price point, making them a viable option for your NAS setup.

Silicon Power A80: The Silicon Power A80 series offers high capacity options at budget-friendly prices. While it may not have the brand recognition of some other SSD manufacturers, it provides reliable performance for storage-intensive applications like NAS usage.