My storage is basically full and I have no more free sata ports so I figured I need to add ports.
I learned that I should not use sata cards or multipliers but go for a SAS controller. But then I also learned that such a controller on its own will consume about 10 watts.
Given that my current server with 4 HDDs consumes just over 30 watts, that got me thinking whether it would be wiser to just replace my two 2TB drives (mirrored) with larger ones and skip the controller.
I don’t expect to max out my storage again in the next few years and if it happens, I could replace the 4TB drives in the same fashion.
Does that make any sense?
I understand that the answer will depend on my priorities or preferences, so I’m starting this thread not so much to find the one and only answer but rather to better understand the pros and cons that I’ll have to weigh against each other.
My starting point is obviously that I’m trying to keep the energy consumption of my home server as low as possible without compromising performance in any significant way.
I’m also trying to not waste money, so I can do the following very rough maths:
The two additional HDDs and a SAS controller will consume an additional 20 watts, which is 175 kWh, which cost me approx 300 SEK. The SAS card plus some cables will set me back about 800 SEK.
Two WD Red Plus 6 TB cost 3600 SEK
while
two WD Red Plus 4 TB cost 2500 SEK
So, the cost for replacing the 2TB drives with 6TB drives is 3600 while the cost för adding a controller with two 4TB drives is 3300. With the extra electricity, of the latter setup, the cost is the same after one year (or two years, if I assume that the server reduces my heating costs during the cold season).
And I have not even considered that the 2 TB drives are a couple of years old and may have to be replace at some point anyway. In addition, skipping the controller may save me some trouble with crossflashing and what not.
So, it seems to me, that adding a controller mostly makes sense for larger or faster growing servers. Or am I missing something?
I learned that I should not use sata cards or multipliers but go for a SAS controller. But then I also learned that such a controller on its own will consume about 10 watts.
Given that my current server with 4 HDDs consumes just over 30 watts, that got me thinking whether it would be wiser to just replace my two 2TB drives (mirrored) with larger ones and skip the controller.
I don’t expect to max out my storage again in the next few years and if it happens, I could replace the 4TB drives in the same fashion.
Does that make any sense?
I understand that the answer will depend on my priorities or preferences, so I’m starting this thread not so much to find the one and only answer but rather to better understand the pros and cons that I’ll have to weigh against each other.
My starting point is obviously that I’m trying to keep the energy consumption of my home server as low as possible without compromising performance in any significant way.
I’m also trying to not waste money, so I can do the following very rough maths:
The two additional HDDs and a SAS controller will consume an additional 20 watts, which is 175 kWh, which cost me approx 300 SEK. The SAS card plus some cables will set me back about 800 SEK.
Two WD Red Plus 6 TB cost 3600 SEK
while
two WD Red Plus 4 TB cost 2500 SEK
So, the cost for replacing the 2TB drives with 6TB drives is 3600 while the cost för adding a controller with two 4TB drives is 3300. With the extra electricity, of the latter setup, the cost is the same after one year (or two years, if I assume that the server reduces my heating costs during the cold season).
And I have not even considered that the 2 TB drives are a couple of years old and may have to be replace at some point anyway. In addition, skipping the controller may save me some trouble with crossflashing and what not.
So, it seems to me, that adding a controller mostly makes sense for larger or faster growing servers. Or am I missing something?
