5
2.5 vs 3.5 HDD (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by pastermil@sh.itjust.works to c/datahoarder@lemmy.ml

I'm looking to get a new internal hard drive for a specific use case:

  • it's for a desktop, meaning I can fit either
  • i need 2TB, no more and no less, also meaning I can get either
  • it's for my media collection, mostly movies
  • it's not gonna be read-only, but I wouldn't write too often (I would torrent, but all the program's metadata would be on another drive)
  • most likely gonna be formatted with btrfs (subject to change, open to suggestion)

Should I get the 2.5 inch or the 3.5 one?

Thanks in advance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I think there isn't much of a difference in your case, but, also, 3.5" are generally a better choice than 2.5" in all aspects except portability.

Higher performing HDDs tend to be 3.5", which might have higher RPM (higher read and write speeds), and bigger solid-state cache to speed up writes. I think 3.5's tend to be more fault-tolerant too.

In your case, you probably wont need more than the average read speed. A large write cache could be useful, especially if you have a fast internet: if your cache is too small, your download speed will be capped by the write speed of your HDD. Torrenting writes in random access rather than sequential, and random access writes are quite slow on HDDs.

You can circumvent the write cache problem in several ways:

  1. Get an HDD with a large write cache.
  2. Download to a faster drive first, eg. an SSD, and then move it to the HDD. (While it is true that moving from the SSD to the HDD, you would still be capped by the HDD speed, sequential write speeds are usually quite a lot faster than the random access writes that torrenting needs.)
  3. Use a write cache drive as part of a filesystem. For this, I am most familiar with ZFS, which can have an HDD device combined with an SSD write back device to speed up writes. I think bcachefs can do this too. I dont know if btrfs can do this.

If you are torrenting to the HDD directly, then use a 4K extent size for btrfs or ZFS.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I've read that larger cache size can be an indicator of SMR drives. Other than that, I don't really care about it.

To confirm your uncertainties, I can indeed use the external caching mechanisms on btrfs.

How much would the RPM affect things? I'd think the lower RPM would be less problematic, at least where longetivity and noise is concerned.

Also, what's your reasoning for the extent size?

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
5 points (85.7% liked)

datahoarder

10510 readers
1 users here now

Who are we?

We are digital librarians. Among us are represented the various reasons to keep data -- legal requirements, competitive requirements, uncertainty of permanence of cloud services, distaste for transmitting your data externally (e.g. government or corporate espionage), cultural and familial archivists, internet collapse preppers, and people who do it themselves so they're sure it's done right. Everyone has their reasons for curating the data they have decided to keep (either forever or For A Damn Long Time). Along the way we have sought out like-minded individuals to exchange strategies, war stories, and cautionary tales of failures.

We are one. We are legion. And we're trying really hard not to forget.

-- 5-4-3-2-1-bang from this thread

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS