Compare Intel X520-SR2 and Intel X520-DA2 to see their differences.
Compare Intel X520-SR2 and Intel X520-DA2 to see their differences.
I already have a 2.5Gbit connection from the LAN to the router, which seems sufficient for now. Although I might manage to upgrade to 10Gbit fiber in the near future, it would likely cost too much to justify. Right now I’m balancing loads between Gigabit fiber and 5G for Steam downloads, achieving about 1.6Gbit per session. I’d like to see WiFi 7 APs reach 5G speeds; my current WiFi 6 AP is connected to a 5Gbit port that operates at 2.5Gbit. In the meantime, spending money during the pandemic on social activities instead of network upgrades would have been a waste. Upgrading routers and APs to 10Gbit copper—especially for PoE—would be a huge energy drain.
Compares data usage between 2.5/5Gbit RJ45 and 10Gbit SFP+ with fiber. The numbers seem approximate, but the comparison suggests fiber can handle higher speeds more efficiently. For your Dell R220 pfSense setup, using SFP+ instead of 10Gbit RJ45 would reduce power draw significantly—around 0.7 watts per port versus 2-5 watts for 10Gbit. This should help manage heat better, especially if you're planning to use fiber. Your goal of replacing mechanical drives with a NAS and streaming library is logical, as current RAID performance supports it, but fiber will be key for speed and efficiency.
I haven't located any standard statistics but discovered an SFP+ NBASE-T adapter claiming up to 1.6W for 2.5Gbit and 2W for 5G at 100m. You definitely don’t want to keep your Steam library on a NAS—games depend on fast random access, and file-sharing protocols are notably slow there. I often transfer many small files, and it takes a long time (over 10Gbit) compared to using two drives together, even on an HDD, on the same computer. The difference is seconds versus minutes. It also consumes a lot of CPU power, so modern games will almost certainly stutter while using it.
iSCSI is about connecting a remote drive to a server, not sharing files across a network. It’s meant for servers with no local storage, using many drives in a centralized location. This setup isn’t about a NAS; it’s focused on performance and reliability in environments where physical storage isn’t available.