Recommended SSDs for cache

[ideasman]

Hi guys,

 

I've just moved over from Synology to unRAID (still have 26 days of trail left ) but only had a couple of 60GB SSDs on hand. After a day or two it sent me an alert about one of the SSDs missing so chucked in a spare 128gb.

 

Having run with a only 60gb cache pool (60gb & 120gb) for a few days i know both the value of having a larger one and was looking into buying  a couple of new drives. From what we have available to us in Australia - here is the list of drives from cheapest to most expensive. I know there's only ~$35 difference between least/most expensive but was wondering if any of the cheaper options are worth it or whether i just bite the bullet and get the samsungs?

 

$190.24AUD - 2 x Kingston SSDNow A400 240GB

$191.20AUD - 2 x Western Digital WD Green 240GB

$198.24AUD - 2 x SanDisk SSD Plus 240GB

$216.00AUD - 2 x Crucial MX500 Series 250GB

$220.80AUD - 2 x Intel 545S Series 256GB

$222.40AUD - 2 x Western Digital WD Blue 250GB

$225.60AUD - 2 x Samsung 850 EVO Series 250GB

 

Any advice or recommendations would be great!

 

Cheers

 

 

[BillClinton]

I have a Crucial MX300 275GB in my system. Got it a few months ago. It has been real stable for me. Bought it for $130 AU. Price is a bit lower now. There is some still available on Aus eBay.

I have seen others having a few reallocated sector issues with the MX500 ( might be something wrong with the firmware).

Just my 2 cents worth.

[whipdancer]

Is there a reason you are only considering SSD's for cache?

[ideasman]

thanks @BillClinton, looks like they're around $108 each at the moment

 

@whipdancer yeah i have a stack of docker containers running and am hoping for some VMs too. I did have them running on the array in the synology but noticed vast improvements on the SSDs. Every other PC / laptop in the house has SSD so why stop at the server

 

[vanes]

This is WD Green "in action"

 

[whipdancer]

4 hours ago, ideasman said:

 yeah i have a stack of docker containers running and am hoping for some VMs too. I did have them running on the array in the synology but noticed vast improvements on the SSDs. Every other PC / laptop in the house has SSD so why stop at the server

I don't think you can compare the performance of the synology vs. unraid (unless the cpu/ram will be the same).

All computers have SSD's as well. But I needed space on my server, so I replaced my 120GB SSD cache drive with a large laptop HD (2TB) instead. No performance difference on my dockers at all, but I can't speak for VM performance since I don't run any.

[ideasman]

8 hours ago, whipdancer said:

I don't think you can compare the performance of the synology vs. unraid (unless the cpu/ram will be the same).

All computers have SSD's as well. But I needed space on my server, so I replaced my 120GB SSD cache drive with a large laptop HD (2TB) instead. No performance difference on my dockers at all, but I can't speak for VM performance since I don't run any.

 

yeah it was the same pc. i don't get the same raw disk performance on unraid that i was getting on synology but that was expected (ie 4 drive RAID5 vs single disks) plus i get other benefits like VMs

 

 

[lionelhutz]

If you plan on having VM's then you will likely want more than 240G for a cache drive.

 

SSD vs spinner won't make any difference in Docker container speeds, except for the times a container is writing to the drive.

Edited March 15, 2018 by lionelhutz

[tdallen]

If you plan to run any heavy downloaders/unpackers then an MLC based SSD (typically Pro models) is a better buy than a TLC model for the higher TBW rating.