Unraid replacement SSD question

Forums › Self-hosted › Unraid replacement SSD question

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#319447 26-Apr-2025 10:16

I have been offered a warranty replacement on my faulty Ironwolf 110 SSD, should I take it?

Kingston replacement, 500GB.

Original Ironwolf, 240GB (pdf).

While I obviously get double the capacity, I was using it as a cache drive.

The Ironwolf was around 4 years old when it failed, and cost around double the replacement I have been offered.

I do not want to wait to see what the manufacturer offers (assuming it is still with them) as it has been three months since I sent it off to be inspected.

Should I take the Kingston?

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3367610 26-Apr-2025 10:18

If the read/write speeds are comparable, and capacity is doubled, then it seems like a good resolution to me - assuming both are the same type of SSD (M.2). If the speeds aren't comparable then it would be a reduction in cache performance, so I would push back to ensure I get like-for-like or better. Given one is M.2 and one is SATA, the benefits should be clear. Just make sure you follow the correct procedure to remove the existing cache device and replace it with the new one in Unraid's config.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3367624 26-Apr-2025 10:54

Thanks Gehenna.

The Ironwolf was SATA, so I assume the read/write will be substantially better on the m2 Kingston.

Looks like I should accept the swap.

timmmay

20859 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5350

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3367636 26-Apr-2025 12:42

Have a look at the TBW value - Terrabytes Written - that'll give you an idea of expected durability.

rscole86

4999 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3367734 26-Apr-2025 17:57

Cheers timmmay

There appears to be very little that hits the ~435 TBW mark, in the M2 market, until you step up to 1TB drives, or spend a lot more money.

I will see what the retailer offers.

Jase2985

13732 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6206

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3367815 27-Apr-2025 01:53

timmmay:

Have a look at the TBW value - Terrabytes Written - that'll give you an idea of expected durability.

DWPD is a better stat to look at these days for drives that are used a fair bit.

davidgo2

46 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 15

#3369138 30-Apr-2025 12:03

The Ironwolf drive you have had a 435TBW value, while the Kingston has a paltry 160TBW figure.

If you are a home user (ie if the Consumer Guarantees Act applies) you are entitled to your money back or a replacement drive - with the warranty starting again - however if you opted out of the CGA, and accept that SSD's have a lifetime it would be fair to argue that the Kingston drive is a fair replacement. On the flipside if this is a "home NAS" the TBW figure may not be very important - even for a caching drive. I guess the question is "why did the drive fail?" If it failed because of the amount of writes that may be an issue.

The Ironwolf drives claim to be "High Endurance for heavy workloads and multi-user NAS environments". The most similar drive I could find was the Ironwolf 125 - 250GB drive for $125.35 from Acquire - but even that has moved on to 3dTLC and has a lower TBW.

I've not used it, but a Teamgroup MP44L 1TB drive ($113.85) which is a bit slower then the proposed Kingston drive but has a 600TBW figure is probably the most similar drive I can find. (Larger drives have a higher TBW figure. You may be able to get the MP44L 500GB model with a comparable TBW for $80 or so, but PBTech don't have them in stock.