Selfhosted

40132 readers

767 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

Recommendation for low power SSD (derpzilla.net)

submitted 7 months ago by Kwa@derpzilla.net to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I’m trying to improve the power consumption of my NAS. The 2 (7200 rpm) HDDs I had were using 15W at idle and 5W when spun down. I’m reading a lot of conflicting information about what is lower power between HDD, SSD and NVMe SSD. Eventually I started looking at SATA SSD (please let me know if this is not the most power efficient)

I found this site that shows a benchmark of different SSDs and their average power consumption. I was about to go with WD Red but then I found a YouTube video saying I shouldn’t go with WD for a NAS.

Can you tell me what brand or model you’re using in your homelab that’s power efficient? Ideally I would like 4TB SSD.

Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You are moving goal-posts. Maybe you are right, but it is still false to claim something is always using more power because it has moving parts.

And of course I didn't only test it for 5 minutes, but rather the impact over a longer time period with the same typical workload of a home server/NAS (i.e. a lot of idling).

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not moving goalposts, I'm trying to explain more clearly the exact thing I said before. Feel free to read my original comment more carefully.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I did and you are still wrong. Maybe you should read more carefully what you wrote ;) You didn't specify in what way they are more "power-efficient". And the second sentence is pure conjecture with no real basis on facts.

Edit: Ok maybe you will understand it this way: if your workload is never exceeding the data-transfer speed that the HDD can deliver then the additional speed of SSDs is useless (a very common situation with NAS). So then you need to consider which technology is using less power over time under these conditions, and moving parts or not is not the relevant metric there.