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.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Korkki@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Should I get the 2.5 inch or the 3.5 one?

If you have the space and mountings in the case then 3.5 naturally. larger drive offers more bang for the buck and that's the most important part when thinking about bulk storage after, storage size and reliability. Things like reliability, noise, write and read speed are more of a question about the model and manufacturer, not the drive dimensions. IMO things like energy consumption when thinking about hard-drives in a PC build are irrelevant, but there 2.5 inch might shine.

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Not sure about the bang for the buck, as the 3.5 tend to be more expensive where I'm at. Worry not, tho, I won't be a cheapskate for when it matters.

As for the size, I'm looking for exactly the 2TB one, for which there's no issue in finding either.

As for the manufacturer, I'm leaning more toward Seagate, which have both types. I already have a few from them, one of which is a 2TB 2.5 HDD for a laptop, which I'm happy with. This one will be for my desktop.

[-] 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?

[-] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'd say 3.5, easier to find a CMR disk which you want for a NAS especially if you seed. I suggest you buy two if you can for a backup. But keep in mind HDD optimal temperature is between 12 and 45, it took me 2x140mm fans running at 1500 rpm to keep at 40%

[-] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

2.5" is almost certainly SMR, which you don't want.

[-] timewarp@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago

Lol you should get a M.2 then.

[-] Korkki@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

If the use is media and file storage, then ssd is not a cost effective solution.

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

I'm not gonna break my bank for nothing...

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 week ago

All other attributes being equal, it doesn't make a difference.

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