New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Larger SSD or extra block storage
A very simple question. If you had to host mainly photos and office documents, managed through Seafile or Nextcloud, would you prefer:
A) a server with a larger SSD (more expensive)
a server with a small SSD + cheap block storage
I know that cost is much higher for A, but what are the key arguments here. Is as reliable, safe? Etc...
Comments
Preference? Option A of course, because B adds a layer of complexity.
As I am cheap I would go for B anyways, and use rclone with cache.
I think B is fine.
For Nextcloud, assuming you're installing with docker, you can put the system and Nextcloud programs on top of the SSD, which will significantly increase boot speed and responsiveness of the Nextcloud interface. For photos and files, putting it on an HDD is economical and sufficient, and generally you won't notice a few tens of milliseconds of added latency.
Unless you have a lot of users, HDDs should not pose any concurrent access burden for personal and home use cases.
It seems that B ) turns to
option B. You can reinstall OS or change providers, you don't need to worry about reaching disk limit.
Block storage was designed exactly for cases like yours.
I would do option B. Even better if you can use S3 as that is even cheaper and simpler to setup. Only drawback with S3 and block storage is that it is of course slower than SSD storage.