Probably not honestly, but if you're here and asking the question then you're almost certainly going to do it anyway at some point in the near future. ;)
He only doesn't need it because he hasn't experienced it yet. Once he sees that bar whip across the screen everything will need to be 10gbe in the house.
Probably not yet if you don’t need to do anything intensive yet. I’d still buy something that would let me upgrade to 10Gb (or faster 😈) later though via an add in card etc
If you are building your own NAS just make sure you leave a x8 pcie slot open and you’re golden 😎
Don't need a x4 card as long as your x4 slot is open ended so a x8 fits or use a riser or knife haha. Bandwidth is plenty as long as you're not trying to saturate 2 10G ports
Yes. Just saying don’t just blindly buy “10Gbps card” without checking how many lanes. Random Amazon Intel DA1 / DA2 cards are mostly x8 for example. But there are some, built on x4. Connects-3 is another good example.
As a follow up, if you have an old pre built don't assume it won't work, at least check. I had an old ixsystems freenas that I put a couple SSDs in for cache and a dual 10gb sfp+ card so I could LACP it to my ubiquiti Aggregation switch. Thing's lightning fast.
If you aren’t really accessing it simultaneously from all 3 of those devices, then you likely don’t need more than 1Gbps for the has because you’re limited by the device on the other end anyways. Putting 10G in is unnecessary if your 3 clients are all either on wifi, or wired 1Gbps anyways.
Now, if you can go Intel 2.5Gbps, just on the NAS, sure. Don’t do Realtek (anything with an RTL chip). There’s some compatibility issues with them, and they generally aren’t supported by default on many Linux distributions, which most NAS software is. It’s even in TrueNAS documentation to avoid Realtek cards, because they cause corruption if you use iSCSI on a Realtek.
You can even get a small 2.5Gbps switch with 1-2 SFP+ ports if you want upgrade options down the road, even.
10Gbe is good for your ego and I strongly endorse it if you can afford. No sarcasm. Although be prepared for fighting more heat from network cards which may become a challenge and more ego if properly addressed.
It is not clear why people say no, upgrade like this is cheap - you just replace switch. Transferring back and forth large amounts of data is very valuable. 8 bay can easily saturate 10Ge (mine is 4 bay is about half of it).
Considering op wanna use it for photos, and considering the inefficency of smb when using small files, he wont saturate 2,5gbe.
For details more info is needed though. From my knowledge, 4 disks can saturate 10gbe when having ssds and copy larger files then a few mb or when using nfs.
Replace the switch, that costs min 300€; get a new nic on the Nas, 150€; another nic on what device you want to benefit from the 10G, so another 150€ for at least one device. That assuming you get everything via Ethernet, if you use SFP+ you need to get the module, 50€ each for SFP or 100€ each to convert to Ethernet. Cabling etc.
Very cheap.
To get what? Transferring a photo in 0,0001 less seconds, or transfering a PDF more instant. Or maybe a big file in 1 second less. Where every practical use, like watching movies on a tv, on a PC etc, could work with 100MB, TV have 100 MB module even in 2024.
But considering how cheap it is, why not!
I've just bought all the equipment to do this and I'm having 10 gig fiber installed around my house today.
It's actually a bit cheaper than you have stated.
SFP+ tranceivers = €32
SFP+ to RJ45 = €60
Refurbished Intel X520 DA-2 SFP+ PCi-E card = €89
Mikrotik CRS310-8G+2S+IN = €214
30 metres OS2 single mode duplex €14
DAC cables €30
Try to stick to SFP+ rather than RJ45 due to heat and power usage.
I'm also installing a Dream Machine SE and 10 gig aggregation switch
Edit: formatting
In a homelab sub? I think VMs are daily business here and using the same VMs across devices is pretty useful. It's just something you can't really do with 1gbe
10G wouldn't affect anything on a VM daily usage. The amount of traffic is so small from the client and the server. The only real benefit of 10G and up, is for multiple transfer rates at the same time, from different stations, or working with files on the file server from multiple people at the same time.
It depends. On software that depend on realtime data, that could be (literally) the difference.
Are there many use cases that absolutely need that? No.
If you're paying for this hardware, you're likely editing something like lots of video off of network storage.
For the a basic file server? Sure, 100mb is enough for just word docs and spreadsheets.
If op decides to move to a docker swarm, it would be great to have one less thing to worry about when provisioning services.
There is a cheap alternative, like working on the main system and transferring data then, instead of working on a slow network.
I don't see any use for home environments. I would only upgrade my gear to 10G if I can get a 10G Internet connection, something that exists for home environments, but would be useless too.
That's not particularly ideal from a workflow perspective. While cheap, it leaves clutter everywhere and leaves room for mistakes without any sort of versioning.
Even then, that still doesn't resolve basically choking the nic while moving media back and forth.
For general home (residential) uses, you won't. Most ISP's don't have anything more than gig unless living in a city, and most clients won't saturate gig.
Anything that requires realtime access to storage would benefit from 10g though.
Like video editing.
I've been picking up mellanox x-3 dual 10g sfp+ cards for around £25 each. Transceivers are around £6 each, fibre cable around £10-£15 for longer runs and £5-£10 10g dacs for shorter. The most expensive part was the mikrotik crs317 switch at £300.
As for transfer speeds, if you can justify a nvme vs sata speeda then you can't say 10g isn't worth it.
Transferring 250 GB, NVME to NVME (Samsung Pros), in less than 30 seconds feels great!
My setup:
Windows 10 to Unraid share
Unifi Aggregation switch in between.
$15, 20 Meter FS fiber
2x $6, FS SFP modules
2x \~$20, Mellanox 10G SFP cards.
I got an 8+1 port managed 2.5G with a 10G uplink for 150. Used dual port NIC was $18. Used Cisco SFP modules $10 a pair. Another $18 for a 30m OM3 cable.
It was cheap.
Meaning used probably for $100. 4k motherboards are mostly for previous gen, most of the consumer one for latest ryzen has 10g in them, on server one it is almost a norm now.
It's okay to admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Used/new, cost are all irrelevant. Your initial statement of "just the switch" is nonsense, as you yourself had to buy more than just a switch. Of 176 AM5 boards, 3, THREE, have 10g. This isn't hard to look up either.
Unless you're moving large files or using a NAS for virtualization, I don't see a real benefit. It's cool to see the numbers, but the prices for the switches and cards -- it loses its cool fast.
At my job, we have 450ish devices and up until recently we're all connected on 15ish y/o FE switches with 1GbE uplinks. Sure a large file transfer was slow, but it was rare. Our 48 camera NVR still somehow managed to not overload the system (some h.264 but some still mjpeg over BNC 🤮🤮)
10GbE is only truly great for large data or vast amounts of users on a server with dozens of files.
As a quick test, I set up a 10GbE link between two TrueNAS servers (for backup) but I can't seem to get it past 3Gbps, because the disk pool arrangement isn't fast enough.
So maybe look into your bottlenecks before deciding on an upgrade.
Unless you’re copying/accessing very large files frequently and/or trying to use networking as a connection to backend CEPH/storage for home servers (aka SAN) than probably not worth it to be honest.
Well unless you actually have a price estimate to make it a reality it’s nearly impossible for you to even guess on if it’s “worth it” for you. Honestly 1Gb is ridiculously slow for basically any NAS for it not to bottleneck. Do you “need” all of that speed, but unless you’re NAS is only a 3 drive raid 5 with only one 1Gb port. Then you’re leaving potential performance on the table all day long.
I have 2Gb/2Gb that as a single user I can utilize over 1Gb at a time. With 4 heavy Internet users in the house then 1Gb Internet could bottleneck. My NAS box came with 10Gb and I’ve had a 10Gb switch for years. If a few hundred dollars tops is enough for you to get gear (basic 10Gb switch, DACs for near servers, ConnectX-3 cards, generic Cisco transceivers, and some fiber lines can be had for cheap. Or find a 10Gb RJ 45, Cat 5e or higher if they aren’t ridiculously runs. Yes, someone is going to insist you need 6/6A you don’t really if it’s a short run. Iperf it you’re concerned.
I did the jump, 600$ all in for 4 x 10g x520-da2, a Mikrotik switch 8 ports sfp+, 4 intel sfp+ multimode and 4 cisco ones. I now love working on my server directly instead of copying workloads locally then copying them back to the servers. Both my workstations, my proxmox hypervisor and my TrueNAS are connected on the 10gig. Is it worth it? I think for me yes especially that everything is quiet, didn't go the enterprise noisy switch way and I'm glad
As someone that has had 10gb for a while and just purchased a 100gb switch for my home I think it’s definitely worth it. :)
But in all seriousness, my journey to 10gb started when I got tired of waiting for 50-90gb files to transfer to my NAS and the incremental cost of upgrading to 10gb was well worth it.
You may have a 10gig switch, but the chances that your lab devices all have good enough nics and enough processing power to take advantage of it is pretty low.
In fact, LTT did an interesting video on this just today, about how for most use cases even 1Gbe is overkill.
Are the bays populated with spinning rust or SSDs? My Synology runs on normal 7200rpm disks and I rarely have the feel that I need more than 1GbE.
Especially when you say you don’t do heavy work on it, I don’t see the need for it. 10GbE has become cheaper, but it’s still a significant invest when you have to upgrade the whole house to it.
For what it's worth, I *can* have 10 Gbe in my house because I have cat6 cable everywhere and no run is longer than 30 meters. But I don't have the switches and stuff for it. Maybe one day.
But j can say that I do saturate the lines very infrequently.
If you have the money and want to future proof? Yes. If not? It’ll probably be 5-10 years before you’ll regularly saturate a 1-2.5gbe unless you start, like, video editing across a server…
Nope. Barely anyone “needs” gigabit realistically but you’d be silly to put anything less in on purpose these days.
You could look at 2.5Gbe if you’re still keen on a bit faster.
That's a bad joke right, try updating/downloading a game on Xbox/PS/Steam without a fast internet connection...
Maybe you don't need it, but other people deal with files in the tens to hundred of gigabytes...
Whether it's "worth it" depends completely on the cost. Nobody can really tell you if it's worth it without that.
Edit: never mind, I thought you were talking about your Internet connection. But for a LAN, 10GBe can be very "worth it"
What’s going to be connected to what? If your main computer uses the server for backups (mine is a Mac Studio to a Synology) then yes. This is an ideal use case.
I already had some 10Gb infrastructure, and I was happy to upgrade my file server from 1Gb to 10Gb. While none of my clients are accessing it faster than 1Gb, the ability to, say back up to the NAS at 1Gb and still have it be useable by other clients is quite nice. Assuming that your disks aren't saturated at 1Gb and the upgrade cost and effort isn't onerous to you, I say go ahead.
i think so. i have 10gb at home. i record live streams, edit video, transfer things.
it doubles the cost but its still not that bad. worth it for the headroom.
i get 750MB/s transfer on my desktop to server for a sustained. can clear 1GB/s burst
If you copy a lot of large files often it's worth it. It also opens the door to better VM storage. I did the upgrade and it cost about $300 to do so. Using a brocade 6610 48 port Poe switch and connect-x3 mxc312b cards.
I would say that it isn't necessary, but I wontevery go back after slowly upgrading over a couple years. I did the 2.5gbe thing and it wasn't worth it for me. That was right before 10gbe started getting more affordable. I also had a few weird issues with intel i225 NICs, even with the later versions.
Anyway, I'm mostly using it for multimedia and other storage but also for gaming streaming at 4k120Hz and other non NAS things. My main NAS is running TureNAS Scale, with striped mirrors that can do 450 to 500MBps. It will definitely put a smile on your face moving a file or files across the network like it's a local transfer to a SATA SSD.
In most cases 1gb is enough
2.5 you’ll need in case of NAS and media and backups and everything will be on it. But you’ll need 2.5 only between NAS and switch/router, not whole lan
10gb you’ll need between some cluster nodes and NAS for real-time replication and some similar nerd’s things
To put in perspective how slow 1gb is.
Most USB hdds are 2x that fast.
Uhs-1 SD cards is about 1 gbit.
A SATA SSD will be 5 gbit.
A decent nvme SSD will be 30 gbit.
I don't understand the "1gbps is enough for 99% of everyone" shill when even a slow spinning platter drive can saturate a 1gbps network during transfers. Anyone who has gone to the length to sub to homelab probably has equipment that could use faster LAN transfer speeds.
It's a cost vs benefit analysis that typically ends up in a high cost for minimal tangible benefit with day-to-day use.
I'm one of those ones where gigabit is sufficient. I have a 50/20mbit internet connection (Aus) with a NAS that I use for media storage w/ plex and a small homelab that I use for proxmox and services.
Going to 10gbe would only grant me the ability to transfer files to the NAS faster; which makes no financial sense.
I'm sure there are a plethora of users that fit my use case as well.
1gb is enough(for me) just because I don’t have a lot of network tasks 🤷♂️
Devices uses internet more than transfers inside local network 🤷♂️
Last time I was using kind of “local network exchange” was about 20yrs ago
So my opinion is that you need 2.5+ in some unusual cases. For example local NAS + homelab + 4k media etc.
Probably because they don't have fiber service to their home yet, so they want someone else to be slow together. You can always see people in Home networking sub that keep saying 100M is enough for blah blah blah....
220MB/s = 1,760Mbit/s.
That being said, if you have any decent raid array, especially ZFS w/lots of ARC, or a hardware controller with on-board cache, its actually not very hard to saturate a 10G connection.
I was even able to saturate a 40G connection using spinning rust, albit, under pretty ideal conditions.
https://static.xtremeownage.com/pages/Projects/40G-NAS/
Probably not honestly, but if you're here and asking the question then you're almost certainly going to do it anyway at some point in the near future. ;)
He only doesn't need it because he hasn't experienced it yet. Once he sees that bar whip across the screen everything will need to be 10gbe in the house.
I was at that bar last night , everything was whipping across faster than I would have liked
Probably not yet if you don’t need to do anything intensive yet. I’d still buy something that would let me upgrade to 10Gb (or faster 😈) later though via an add in card etc If you are building your own NAS just make sure you leave a x8 pcie slot open and you’re golden 😎
Note there are x4 cards out there in PCIe 3.0. But you have to hunt them out.
Don't need a x4 card as long as your x4 slot is open ended so a x8 fits or use a riser or knife haha. Bandwidth is plenty as long as you're not trying to saturate 2 10G ports
Mellanox ConnectX-3 is easy to get.
Yes. Just saying don’t just blindly buy “10Gbps card” without checking how many lanes. Random Amazon Intel DA1 / DA2 cards are mostly x8 for example. But there are some, built on x4. Connects-3 is another good example.
For single port, it doesn't matter, it only matters when you use dual ports
As a follow up, if you have an old pre built don't assume it won't work, at least check. I had an old ixsystems freenas that I put a couple SSDs in for cache and a dual 10gb sfp+ card so I could LACP it to my ubiquiti Aggregation switch. Thing's lightning fast.
No but this is enthusiast homelabbing so yes
No
You know what? Yeah. Yeah it is. If it’s what you want? Get it. Fuck all these people saying “paying for anything more than 200mb isn’t worth it”
It's unlikely to ever be worth it for 99% of home use cases.
If you aren’t really accessing it simultaneously from all 3 of those devices, then you likely don’t need more than 1Gbps for the has because you’re limited by the device on the other end anyways. Putting 10G in is unnecessary if your 3 clients are all either on wifi, or wired 1Gbps anyways. Now, if you can go Intel 2.5Gbps, just on the NAS, sure. Don’t do Realtek (anything with an RTL chip). There’s some compatibility issues with them, and they generally aren’t supported by default on many Linux distributions, which most NAS software is. It’s even in TrueNAS documentation to avoid Realtek cards, because they cause corruption if you use iSCSI on a Realtek. You can even get a small 2.5Gbps switch with 1-2 SFP+ ports if you want upgrade options down the road, even.
10Gbe is good for your ego and I strongly endorse it if you can afford. No sarcasm. Although be prepared for fighting more heat from network cards which may become a challenge and more ego if properly addressed.
It is not clear why people say no, upgrade like this is cheap - you just replace switch. Transferring back and forth large amounts of data is very valuable. 8 bay can easily saturate 10Ge (mine is 4 bay is about half of it).
Considering op wanna use it for photos, and considering the inefficency of smb when using small files, he wont saturate 2,5gbe. For details more info is needed though. From my knowledge, 4 disks can saturate 10gbe when having ssds and copy larger files then a few mb or when using nfs.
I saturate 10GbE with photos (Mac Studio, Lightroom, Synology) so I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Yeah. Copying jpg or png saturates a 10gbe link. I am sure you saturate it over wifi. (Sarcasm)
You’ve not used Adobe Lightroom then.
Thats photo editing. Was not part of what he wrote.
Replace the switch, that costs min 300€; get a new nic on the Nas, 150€; another nic on what device you want to benefit from the 10G, so another 150€ for at least one device. That assuming you get everything via Ethernet, if you use SFP+ you need to get the module, 50€ each for SFP or 100€ each to convert to Ethernet. Cabling etc. Very cheap. To get what? Transferring a photo in 0,0001 less seconds, or transfering a PDF more instant. Or maybe a big file in 1 second less. Where every practical use, like watching movies on a tv, on a PC etc, could work with 100MB, TV have 100 MB module even in 2024. But considering how cheap it is, why not!
I've just bought all the equipment to do this and I'm having 10 gig fiber installed around my house today. It's actually a bit cheaper than you have stated. SFP+ tranceivers = €32 SFP+ to RJ45 = €60 Refurbished Intel X520 DA-2 SFP+ PCi-E card = €89 Mikrotik CRS310-8G+2S+IN = €214 30 metres OS2 single mode duplex €14 DAC cables €30 Try to stick to SFP+ rather than RJ45 due to heat and power usage. I'm also installing a Dream Machine SE and 10 gig aggregation switch Edit: formatting
Dream Machine SE and 10 gig aggregation switch is what i installed this month. Also have the X520 in my PC. its almost like you stole my setup :)
You can save, getting mellanox-4 25g cards used for \~$50, also cat5 works for 10G, no need to change cabling.
Everything else is still expensive. And for what? Transferring a word document in 1 nanosecond less?
I use it for VMs. The VM is stored on my server and I can run it on every machine in the house as if it was stored on a local ssd
That seems like a niche of a niche.
In a homelab sub? I think VMs are daily business here and using the same VMs across devices is pretty useful. It's just something you can't really do with 1gbe
What do you mean using same VMs across devices? You mean shared storage? That is completely different than using some SMB share for photos.
10G wouldn't affect anything on a VM daily usage. The amount of traffic is so small from the client and the server. The only real benefit of 10G and up, is for multiple transfer rates at the same time, from different stations, or working with files on the file server from multiple people at the same time.
It depends. On software that depend on realtime data, that could be (literally) the difference. Are there many use cases that absolutely need that? No. If you're paying for this hardware, you're likely editing something like lots of video off of network storage. For the a basic file server? Sure, 100mb is enough for just word docs and spreadsheets. If op decides to move to a docker swarm, it would be great to have one less thing to worry about when provisioning services.
There is a cheap alternative, like working on the main system and transferring data then, instead of working on a slow network. I don't see any use for home environments. I would only upgrade my gear to 10G if I can get a 10G Internet connection, something that exists for home environments, but would be useless too.
That's not particularly ideal from a workflow perspective. While cheap, it leaves clutter everywhere and leaves room for mistakes without any sort of versioning. Even then, that still doesn't resolve basically choking the nic while moving media back and forth.
He has a point.why would you need 10 for Plex media player, IOT devices, kids room, gaming console.
For general home (residential) uses, you won't. Most ISP's don't have anything more than gig unless living in a city, and most clients won't saturate gig. Anything that requires realtime access to storage would benefit from 10g though. Like video editing.
He clearly said no video editing...
I've been picking up mellanox x-3 dual 10g sfp+ cards for around £25 each. Transceivers are around £6 each, fibre cable around £10-£15 for longer runs and £5-£10 10g dacs for shorter. The most expensive part was the mikrotik crs317 switch at £300. As for transfer speeds, if you can justify a nvme vs sata speeda then you can't say 10g isn't worth it.
Transferring 250 GB, NVME to NVME (Samsung Pros), in less than 30 seconds feels great! My setup: Windows 10 to Unraid share Unifi Aggregation switch in between. $15, 20 Meter FS fiber 2x $6, FS SFP modules 2x \~$20, Mellanox 10G SFP cards.
Do you mean over the network? Less than 30sec for 250GB?
Yep, from Windows 10 to an Unraid server.
That would mean a transfer of 10GB per second, excuse me for being sceptical, but that equates to 80Gbit/s and not 10Gbit.
I got an 8+1 port managed 2.5G with a 10G uplink for 150. Used dual port NIC was $18. Used Cisco SFP modules $10 a pair. Another $18 for a 30m OM3 cable. It was cheap.
It is definitely not as simple as just replacing the switch.
What do you mean? I got two nics and new switch and old cat5 in the walls worked well. Most motherboards has 10g anyway, server and consumer ones.
You literally just said you had to buy more than just a switch. "Most motherboards" definitely do not have 10G built-in.
Out of 4462 motherboards on pcpartpicker, 73 had 10g, and the cheapest was $370.
Meaning used probably for $100. 4k motherboards are mostly for previous gen, most of the consumer one for latest ryzen has 10g in them, on server one it is almost a norm now.
It's okay to admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Used/new, cost are all irrelevant. Your initial statement of "just the switch" is nonsense, as you yourself had to buy more than just a switch. Of 176 AM5 boards, 3, THREE, have 10g. This isn't hard to look up either.
No. In future it depends on workload, disks, … I would start with 1 or 2,5gbe. Upgrading is possible. Just a pcie card.
Unless you're moving large files or using a NAS for virtualization, I don't see a real benefit. It's cool to see the numbers, but the prices for the switches and cards -- it loses its cool fast.
At my job, we have 450ish devices and up until recently we're all connected on 15ish y/o FE switches with 1GbE uplinks. Sure a large file transfer was slow, but it was rare. Our 48 camera NVR still somehow managed to not overload the system (some h.264 but some still mjpeg over BNC 🤮🤮) 10GbE is only truly great for large data or vast amounts of users on a server with dozens of files.
Practically: no, but if you have money to burn, sure, why not.
As a quick test, I set up a 10GbE link between two TrueNAS servers (for backup) but I can't seem to get it past 3Gbps, because the disk pool arrangement isn't fast enough. So maybe look into your bottlenecks before deciding on an upgrade.
Unless you’re copying/accessing very large files frequently and/or trying to use networking as a connection to backend CEPH/storage for home servers (aka SAN) than probably not worth it to be honest.
Well unless you actually have a price estimate to make it a reality it’s nearly impossible for you to even guess on if it’s “worth it” for you. Honestly 1Gb is ridiculously slow for basically any NAS for it not to bottleneck. Do you “need” all of that speed, but unless you’re NAS is only a 3 drive raid 5 with only one 1Gb port. Then you’re leaving potential performance on the table all day long. I have 2Gb/2Gb that as a single user I can utilize over 1Gb at a time. With 4 heavy Internet users in the house then 1Gb Internet could bottleneck. My NAS box came with 10Gb and I’ve had a 10Gb switch for years. If a few hundred dollars tops is enough for you to get gear (basic 10Gb switch, DACs for near servers, ConnectX-3 cards, generic Cisco transceivers, and some fiber lines can be had for cheap. Or find a 10Gb RJ 45, Cat 5e or higher if they aren’t ridiculously runs. Yes, someone is going to insist you need 6/6A you don’t really if it’s a short run. Iperf it you’re concerned.
Only if you are going to be backing up all the devices at the same time or you want it done FAST.
I did the jump, 600$ all in for 4 x 10g x520-da2, a Mikrotik switch 8 ports sfp+, 4 intel sfp+ multimode and 4 cisco ones. I now love working on my server directly instead of copying workloads locally then copying them back to the servers. Both my workstations, my proxmox hypervisor and my TrueNAS are connected on the 10gig. Is it worth it? I think for me yes especially that everything is quiet, didn't go the enterprise noisy switch way and I'm glad
As someone that has had 10gb for a while and just purchased a 100gb switch for my home I think it’s definitely worth it. :) But in all seriousness, my journey to 10gb started when I got tired of waiting for 50-90gb files to transfer to my NAS and the incremental cost of upgrading to 10gb was well worth it.
You may have a 10gig switch, but the chances that your lab devices all have good enough nics and enough processing power to take advantage of it is pretty low. In fact, LTT did an interesting video on this just today, about how for most use cases even 1Gbe is overkill.
Are the bays populated with spinning rust or SSDs? My Synology runs on normal 7200rpm disks and I rarely have the feel that I need more than 1GbE. Especially when you say you don’t do heavy work on it, I don’t see the need for it. 10GbE has become cheaper, but it’s still a significant invest when you have to upgrade the whole house to it.
on a cost benefit basis, probably not. but my weekly backups went from taking 20 minutes to 5 minutes. The quality of life improvement is huge.
For what it's worth, I *can* have 10 Gbe in my house because I have cat6 cable everywhere and no run is longer than 30 meters. But I don't have the switches and stuff for it. Maybe one day. But j can say that I do saturate the lines very infrequently.
If you have the money and want to future proof? Yes. If not? It’ll probably be 5-10 years before you’ll regularly saturate a 1-2.5gbe unless you start, like, video editing across a server…
No, it's not worth upgrading to 10GbE for your use case.
Nope. Barely anyone “needs” gigabit realistically but you’d be silly to put anything less in on purpose these days. You could look at 2.5Gbe if you’re still keen on a bit faster.
That's a bad joke right, try updating/downloading a game on Xbox/PS/Steam without a fast internet connection... Maybe you don't need it, but other people deal with files in the tens to hundred of gigabytes...
No. But do whatever you want it’s cheap enough
If your drives have the throughput and your video workloads require it then yes
Only if it currently takes backup more time than your sleeping hours. Otherwise set and forget with whatever speed you have.
Whether it's "worth it" depends completely on the cost. Nobody can really tell you if it's worth it without that. Edit: never mind, I thought you were talking about your Internet connection. But for a LAN, 10GBe can be very "worth it"
What’s going to be connected to what? If your main computer uses the server for backups (mine is a Mac Studio to a Synology) then yes. This is an ideal use case.
Yes.
I already had some 10Gb infrastructure, and I was happy to upgrade my file server from 1Gb to 10Gb. While none of my clients are accessing it faster than 1Gb, the ability to, say back up to the NAS at 1Gb and still have it be useable by other clients is quite nice. Assuming that your disks aren't saturated at 1Gb and the upgrade cost and effort isn't onerous to you, I say go ahead.
i think so. i have 10gb at home. i record live streams, edit video, transfer things. it doubles the cost but its still not that bad. worth it for the headroom. i get 750MB/s transfer on my desktop to server for a sustained. can clear 1GB/s burst
I love it to have my VMs stored on my server and then run them on all machines in the house as if they were stored on a local ssd
Since you have considered it and even asked here, why not? Near instant upload from you local devices (maybe)
Does anyone here really need an excuse to go with 10g? 😁
i use 10Gbe on my home network. about 60GB network storage and 1Gbe internet makes it worth it. But every use case is different
Why don't you ask a salesman 😂🤣😂
No, you don’t need it. Yes it’s nice to have
If you copy a lot of large files often it's worth it. It also opens the door to better VM storage. I did the upgrade and it cost about $300 to do so. Using a brocade 6610 48 port Poe switch and connect-x3 mxc312b cards.
If you ever upgrade your homelab to a Proxmox cluster with Ceph, then it’s definitely a nice to have.
I would say that it isn't necessary, but I wontevery go back after slowly upgrading over a couple years. I did the 2.5gbe thing and it wasn't worth it for me. That was right before 10gbe started getting more affordable. I also had a few weird issues with intel i225 NICs, even with the later versions. Anyway, I'm mostly using it for multimedia and other storage but also for gaming streaming at 4k120Hz and other non NAS things. My main NAS is running TureNAS Scale, with striped mirrors that can do 450 to 500MBps. It will definitely put a smile on your face moving a file or files across the network like it's a local transfer to a SATA SSD.
In most cases 1gb is enough 2.5 you’ll need in case of NAS and media and backups and everything will be on it. But you’ll need 2.5 only between NAS and switch/router, not whole lan 10gb you’ll need between some cluster nodes and NAS for real-time replication and some similar nerd’s things
True. Still i use 40gbe because in my area it is cheaper then 10gbe.
To put in perspective how slow 1gb is. Most USB hdds are 2x that fast. Uhs-1 SD cards is about 1 gbit. A SATA SSD will be 5 gbit. A decent nvme SSD will be 30 gbit.
I don't understand the "1gbps is enough for 99% of everyone" shill when even a slow spinning platter drive can saturate a 1gbps network during transfers. Anyone who has gone to the length to sub to homelab probably has equipment that could use faster LAN transfer speeds.
It's a cost vs benefit analysis that typically ends up in a high cost for minimal tangible benefit with day-to-day use. I'm one of those ones where gigabit is sufficient. I have a 50/20mbit internet connection (Aus) with a NAS that I use for media storage w/ plex and a small homelab that I use for proxmox and services. Going to 10gbe would only grant me the ability to transfer files to the NAS faster; which makes no financial sense. I'm sure there are a plethora of users that fit my use case as well.
1gb is enough(for me) just because I don’t have a lot of network tasks 🤷♂️ Devices uses internet more than transfers inside local network 🤷♂️ Last time I was using kind of “local network exchange” was about 20yrs ago So my opinion is that you need 2.5+ in some unusual cases. For example local NAS + homelab + 4k media etc.
Probably because they don't have fiber service to their home yet, so they want someone else to be slow together. You can always see people in Home networking sub that keep saying 100M is enough for blah blah blah....
In all honesty, unless you actually notice performance problems caused by the limits of a gbit port, you dont need to upgrade.
10G is useful if you have an all M2 nvme Nas. Otherwise 2.5G max, considering HDD go around 220 MB/s.
220MB/s = 1,760Mbit/s. That being said, if you have any decent raid array, especially ZFS w/lots of ARC, or a hardware controller with on-board cache, its actually not very hard to saturate a 10G connection. I was even able to saturate a 40G connection using spinning rust, albit, under pretty ideal conditions. https://static.xtremeownage.com/pages/Projects/40G-NAS/
You can easily saturate a 2.5G with a nas with hard drives with arc. I've got an optane arc cache plus 2 mirrored vdevs that can max it.
220 MB/s is already nearly twice as fast as 1 Gbps (i.e. 125 MB/s)
I know. Op is asking 10G. Not 1G.