this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
47 points (92.7% liked)

Selfhosted

59939 readers
274 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
47
Seagate Ironwolf or WD red plus drives (pawb.social)
submitted 1 year ago by mjokfox@pawb.social to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Ive been wanting to get proper storage for my lil server running nextcloud and a couple other things, but nc is the main concern. Its currently running on an old ssd ive had laying around so i would want a more reliable longer term solution.

So thinking of a raid1 (mirror) hdd setup, with two 5400rpm 8tb drives, bringing the choices down to ironwolf or wd red plus, which both are in the same price range.

Im currently biased towards the ironwolfs because they are slightly cheaper and have a cool print on them, but from reddit threads ive seen that wd drives are generally quieter, which currently is a concern since the server is in my bedroom.

Does anyone have experience with these two drives and or know better solutions?

Oh and for the os, being a simple linux server, is it generally fine to have that on a separate drive, an ssd in this case?

Thanks! :3

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mjokfox@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

These all seem to be 7200rpm drives, would 5400rpm drives make a large difference in terms of longevity relative to that? Also seeing mixed results from seagate there, first they mention there being 0 failures of a couple seagate models, but then later in the graph of annualized failures, seagate in general has the highest failure rate

[–] taiidan@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't think so. 5400 rpm drives might last longer if we're specifically thinking about mechanical wear. My main takeaway is that WDC has the best. I would use the largest number available which is the final chart which you also point out. One thing which others have also pointed out that there is no metadata included with these results. For example the location of different drives, i.e. rack and server-room specific data. These would control for temperature, vibration and other potential confounders. Also likely that as new servers are brought online, different SKUs are being bought in groups, i.e. all 10 TB Seagate Ironwolf. I don't know why they haven't tried to use linear or simple machine learning models to try to provide some explanatory information to this data, but nevertheless I am deeply appreciative that this data is available at all.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The wd60efrx is a 5400 with 0.00% failure. I think all the WD reds were 5400.