Should I put an SSD for the OS in the server?

Question

Iron

The company plans to install a server for 20+ employees, it will work as a file storage (Nextcloud), a network gateway, a host platform for corporate sites, more tasks will be added in the future (work with the database). Does this server need an SSD disk for the system and database, or can I get by with "soft" RAID 10?

Answer 1

in my opinion:
1 - budget sdd 32/64 for the system to boot + RAID10... but (! again, in my opinion) ... if RAID10 - then not 4, but at least 8 hard drives (and even better 16, and yes (!!!) - you can have the most budget ones ... but preferably 2 more pieces on a shelf in the closet, in case that may not happen, but it would be better if there were ... if 16, then at least 3 are better in reserve)
2 - and you can SSD. according to my observations - marathon runners, this is Intel, then San Disk ... and OSZ, which diligently advertises itself, was baked first (although it was bought last) ... well, how baked ... I merged it, with an indicator of its native tula 84% of life ( upd osz 3 years of operation .. Intel 5th went ... tfu-tfu-tfu .. writes 100% health / life) ( upd2operation mode - everyone had a merciless one, moving systems, depending on the size, residing on all disks of early copies of wine 10 previews (they were given a license later, but these are frequent updates of the early cycle) ... backups of disk images and recovery, mutual migrations systems... and so on... and no attempt to save SSD..)))
you can try to calculate the budget based on these tips... RAID10 gives you exactly 50% of the working space, 100% survives the death of one disk, with a probability of 50 % survives the simultaneous death of two disks... and yes - RAID10 is the only raid whose speed grows in direct proportion to the number of
disks. r10 is possible and necessarystuffing with cheap disks in large quantities , it’s the very thing for this
ps
1+ - why don’t I talk about a “mirror” from budget SSDs for the system - mirrors are stupid, unfortunately. they are good only when one of the disks dies - replacement, mirror rebuild, and everyone celebrates ... if the failure is logical - mirrors are not always able to correctly determine where the correct copy is ... well, that is ... the more expensive the controller, the more accurate the definition ... but never a 100% guarantee
for the system - backups. just regular backups, after each change in the system settings. backup guarantees that you raise yesterday's (last working) copy ... 100% guaranteed ... but there are still rules for backups))) - 3 copies on different media ... and so on ... but this is a whole topic
pps

"soft" RAID

hooked, and for a long time could not understand what? you about software raid?
if so, advice - it is better not to. more risks. the system glitched - and driver transactions are not completed ...
it's better to immediately SSD and think over a backup system

Answer 2

will work as a file storage (Nextcloud), network gateway, host platform for corporate sites, more tasks will be added in the future (work with the database)

It would be better and correct to use two servers for this circus. For file cleaning and other waste, a simple option with an HDD is enough. For a web, a gateway, and something else, it is possible and highly desirable to have an SSD.

work with database

Have you already decided on the profile of the database? OLAP or OLTP?

Answer 3

I would put an SSD for fast booting of the system, and in general everything will work faster.
But, SSD is only for system files, since storing files on SSD is idiocy.
You need to proceed from the budget, there is an opportunity to put it, put it, no ... well, no, and there is no trial.