What is the largest size HDD that you would trust?

i have 2 8tb drives shucked from the $160 WD easystors.

1TB, buy them cheap, and stack them deep.

Put the money you've saved towards a used 16 port SASII HBA.

8 drives in RAID0

Anything with ZFS and 3 2 1 backup

Attached: 1522852825728.gif (395x408, 1.96M)

I went with a 4TB drive a few years ago and am pretty content with that but the data density is tempting, I've been thinking about getting a few 8TB HGST drives.

how THE FUCK do 1tb drives SAVE MONEY

1TB drives are effectively the price floor of new production.
In any given class of drive, you generally won't find drives under 1TB being cheaper than a 1TB drive in that class.

just use the cloud bro :^)

what is the price per bay for an enclosure?
what is the price per slot for a controller?
what is the price per drive for electricity?
what is the price per drive for cabling?

times 8

add that to the price of a 8 1tb drives

and 100% of the time, it exceeds the price of an 8tb drive

that's not what he meant, idiot. he means a 1tb drive is representative of how much a drive costs to make + margins, since LOWER capacity drives aren't cheaper because of material cost.

I think a better question is, why are HDD's so unreliable? If you keep a DVD in good condition, it'll last decades, even if you were to keep it in your computer and have it constantly spin up/spin down.

But god forbid the pcb on the HDD gets damaged or the head stops working. All that data gone.

Is there no fucking way to swap out PCB's or headers, or just..design HDD's in a way that allows the platters to be transferred? I didn't mean SSD's because they aren't reliable either and have a limited amount of writes.

3 tb
2 disk
btrfs

>electricity
>cabling
spotted the poorfag who can't afford literal cents of electricity and sata cables

8 1tb drives can provide you with 2x redundancy for a sacrifice of half the storage, 1 8tb drive can't.

Lots of delicate fast moving parts with lots of failure points

1 giant 14TB HDD is so fucking stupid.

You get a performance boost by using 14x 1TB drives since the load is spread across 14 different drives.

Nevermind the fact you're not even supposed to be taking these drives out of their enclosures, since they're designed to be EXTERNAL archival drives. Yet these IDIOTIC consumers want to rip them out and treat them like enterprise drives, then come on Jow Forums and brag about how they have 40TB+ of shit storage.

FUCK OFF

2tb are cheaper now per gib$.

>need 1PB of storage
>1000 1TB drives or 72 14TB drives
hmm

>If you keep a DVD in good condition, it'll last decades
This. Recently dug out some of my backup ISO of softwares and games i made a decade ago and they outlast my HDD without backup and still costs 1/10 less. I'm currently looking a way to balance my backup medium 50/50 dvd/hdd.

shit it didn't work

Attached: 1493240041351.jpg (4011x2100, 3.65M)

or you could have 14x14TB drives and get 196TB of storage in the same physical rack space.

Going to be buying an 8TB animu/game drive, so that I guess. Important documents will be on my SSD and backed up alongside other data to a 1TB external occasionally.

6 watts * 8760 hours per year * 3 years / 80% efficiency PSU * 8 drives / 1000 * $0.11 per kwh = $28.91

$28.91 is not negligible versus the price of an 8tb drive.

...

>take drive out of external enclosure
>mount it in a server, where it's securely mounted in a drive bay with a fan on it
>this is somehow a step down from the enclosure where the drive may get knocked around as it bakes itself

>why are HDD's so unreliable?
With optical media the data is separated from the drive itself. If your DVD drive fails you don't lose your DVD (unless the drive does a murder suicide thing)

>arguing over a mere 28$

POORFAG REVEALS HIMSELF

This is a comparison of the price of 8x1tb vs 8tb. What one can afford is irrelevant. Which is cheaper all-in?

If you want exactly 8tb raw storage with redundancy, BY ALL MEANS don't buy one 8tb drive. But that isn't what we are discussing. It's price per TB and all-in price per drive/slot.

You can buy and support 2x 8tb drives for that price.

$28.91 is 18.1% of $159.99

Fair enough, refurbs are down to $50, new are $90, so buy a stack of those instead.

Minimum acceptable standard is a two drive mirror.

half the price, with unknown levels of use and no warranty.

I wasn't particularly advising to buy the refurbs.

Though I've bought straight up used ones off of ebay before.

>hard drive thread

speak of the devil, was about to ask about this in the stupid questions general

was pretty much gonna ask what op asked. I see some hdds go as high as 12 now a days but id imagien the bigger hard drives have a higher rate of failure. Would 4 be the highest thats currently safe at the moment? I wanted to get 4 4 tb hard drives and get an enclosure so i can basically have a 16 tb toaster connect to my

laptop

not gonna happen for awhile because of financial reasons (700 bucks isnt much but its to much for what i dont have at the moment) but doing research beforehand wouldnt hurt. id imagine i should stick with wd?

Attached: 1503735972180.png (421x121, 19K)

They don't have a higher rate of failure, just having a single drive means if the drive dies you lose all your data. Also if you're thinking of buying 4 drives you definitely should run them in Raid-5, which would give you 12TB capacity and redundancy.

Their size doesn't seem to have any correlation to their rate of failure.

How well they are manufactured seems to be the main thing.

Like seagate 4Tb drives have a terrible history.
Newer (and larger) drives not so much.

HGST has had a great overall record of reliability.

Attached: HDD failure.jpg (1055x1022, 163K)

Whatever the largest double platter is.

>redundancy

mind elaborating?

know any enclosures with 4 drive bays and raid functionality and isnt a piece of shit?

ah, good to know, ill look into hgst then. Im wary of buying hd anything because all of my externals 7 years ago crapped out in less than a few months, hoping internals dont have the same failure rate

Single platter

If one drive dies in RAID 5 you lose zero data

i looked it up, good to know but id like to actually have 16 tbs not just half of what i wanted with a backup. fuck it i can settle for 8 if neccessary

Why is raid not considered a backup when it requires simultaneous drive failure to make that statement true?

Because the controller could fail.

Attached: defcon_5.gif (310x760, 23K)

What would be the best way to keep a working backup of this data? What if I had twice as much data stored?

Attached: Untitled.png (1035x147, 15K)

HGST should be pretty reliable, just expensive since the big capacity drives are enterprise oriented. Interned with their QA team a while back and they seem to take reliability fairly seriously. Then again I guess most companies would do that.

>mind elaborating?
I am not OP but I can help inform you.

You can either look into a DIY solution.
Basically standard PC hardware + an OS like freenas or open media vault.

Or you could buy a ready made NAS solution from QNAP or Synology
Their prices range wildly depending how much power you want in them, but they are simply to use

I would recommend getting a UPS for either solution so in case of a power outage the system can shutdown safely and not fuck things up.

the DIY way is cheaper and more powerful, but requires effort on your part to maintain/build the system.

A single raid array is not a backup yes.
What happens if your site/home gets hit with an earthquake or a fire ?
what happens if you're unlucky and have a disk crap out on you during an array rebuild or run into an URE ?

A RAID 5 would only sacrifice a third of capacity for parity.

Is there any difference between enterprise and regular pc hdds? I keep seeing nas thrown around for example and im not quite sure i get the difference besides intended use. Seems like theyre just not shit hdds

how much effort would a diy solution require? Would i need to solder and build shit or is it as simple as jsut having the components? Having a ready made nas would be great but i am a cheapass

Look into buying these specific models that Backblaze tested. It's possible that HGST always makes reliable drives but it may also mean that Backblaze got really lucky with the models they picked since failure rates are inconsistent between different models from the same brand.

Backblaze only ever buys a specific kind of drive with the right GB/price ratio so while this is a good model recommendation chart it is not a good brand recommendation chart.

I think the firmware on the drive is different but I sadly don't really remember what that meant. Probably some data reliability features aren't on the PC HDDs. Like making sure data gets written during power loss, which I guess isn't as critical for desktop environments. I think the larger capacity stuff they just assume is enterprise level so they add in some extra reliability features. I didn't do desktop testing so sadly I don't have much to compare against.

good to know, ill have to keep that file then for reference

qnap.com/en-us/product/ts-451+
also why the fuck does a hd enclosure have a remote

and why the fuck do some enclosures have chemical exposure warnings

the easiest analogy would be like

QNAP/Synology = apple "it just works"
DIY = build your own PC

very much the same sort of stuff.

If you are comfortable building your own PC and wouldn't get lost at a command prompt you can do the DIY.
The DIY way offers far more flexibility and options, but it is just a matter of different strokes for different folks.

Some people just want a simpler solution that works out of the box.

you will have to go beyond 4 bay NAS.
1 bay is gone due to parity, you need will need 6tb sized drives at a minimum just for your current collection of data.

if you want room to grow either get larger drives OR a nas with more bays to it

I run 1:1 parity. The only limit is my budget

Attached: 1524245328552.png (800x800, 84K)

so its basically like building a mini pc then but crammed with hdds? ill need to look that up because i dont even know where to begin with kind of project. Ive never build a pc myself but i know the basics.

the largest nas ive seen have 5 bays other than those big ass 16 bay nas which i think is overkill really. Ill probably go for higher storage if anything with a 4 or 5 nas

Synology makes 4-8 bay nas for relatively cheap
Typically they are ARM cores or celerons/atoms powering them.

Good enough for a simple file server.

128gb ssd

Except they're really

Because rm -rf

I'm investing in a 1TB HDD soon.
Mild safety if the first one craps out.
Would also get a portable 1TB in case components in the pc go bad and fry my main storage.

>>need 1PB of storage
when does this ever happen

pic

Attached: sQM6.png (595x217, 79K)

i'm trying to save all the porn from the interwebs

any size, just regularly wipe it with a cloth or something

Size has nothing to do with it. The question is how many drives of redundancy you accept minimally.

Are you okay with being down to one RAID6 array after something fails or do you need more copies?

My home backup solution is pretty ghetto but works for us. I didn't want a NAS running 24/7 so i've put equal storage in both my and my wife's PCs (7TB each). Each computer has an internal mirror, and once ever couple of days they backup automatically to the other PC for a total of 3 copies between 2 computers. This just runs via a scheduled task. The most important docs get backed up to external hdd manually.

I also run a long HDD scan on any new harddrive in the hopes it will fail fast if its a lemon.

My only concern is a housefire as that could wipe out everything, but i don't like the idea of continually paying for cloud storage as a service.

>I don't want an NAS running 24/7.
My server with 8 drives consumes less than 10w when idle. I have it set so windows puts the drives in an inactive state when not used for 10 or more minutes. Ieam you have money for 7TB of drives across 2 PCs but can't afford the extra yearly $50-$70 in power?

An NAS or server would fix your ghetto setup real quick.

Kind of related question; are there any online services that are cheaper alternatives to just stockpiling 2TB drives locally?
I've looked into some services a while ago because I'm dirt poor and need a backup for about 2TB of data but was shocked by the prices. Dropbox e.g. wants 10€/month for 1TB of storage.

about tree fiddy

> once ever couple of days they backup automatically to the other PC for a total of 3 copies between 2 computers
Wouldn't it be simpler to just use syncthing with staggered retention and let it run whenever anyone changes anything and both machines are online and in the LAN?

it does do a sort of staggered retention, modified/deleted files in the mirror are stored for a period in a temp folder.

i use to have it update immediately, but i didn't like having both computers run constantly for the remote mirror (more noise, heat, cost) and the local mirror just meant excess mirroring writes that were overwritten soon after anyway. I guess nothing is so critical that half an hour of work lost on HDD fail isn't a great risk.

yes it does, your data is still safe

> i didn't like having both computers run constantly for the remote mirror
You don't need to if you have a more loose method. It just does its thing when both run.

>the local mirror just meant excess mirroring writes that were overwritten soon after anyway.
It would possibly mean that, but due to staggered versioning you'll already be rid of most copies after an hour/day

Well, if your current setup works for you, great. This was just a suggestion for something pretty clever that works particularly well if you base it on machines that are just online when multiple people already use these machines at the same time.

could you elaborate on what software you'd use for the staggered mirroring? it does sound less hacky then what i currently have.

These posts come up in every HDD thread. Do you people really double or triple your storage costs for your media?

64mb

1tb, anything more is not needed.

Well I'm not going to fuck my ratio and spend weeks redownloading tebibytes of content

I trust my 2TB reds
But not enough not to have two of them in raid 1
And backups on three separate drives

Syncthing [you might prefer to use synctrayzor on Windows] supports it OOTB.

>speedlets on my board

>tfwl ADSL

That's assuming your drive is likely to die. If you aren't hammering it 25/7 it'll probably last until you buy a 40TB drive for your next build.

> Do you people really double or triple your storage costs for your media?
I do for my most important data, yes.

As for random media, you can just decide to use RAID5/6 without backup copy.

This will much / extremely reduce the chance of drive-loss induced data loss at the fixed cost of one / two drives per array. Which usually should be more like 25/50% extra in cost (could also be less), not 100-200% extra.

To me, the NAS with it's RAID Z1 or RAID-5 array is the backup
>inb4 autism
Most of the storage on the NAS is fungible data--website archival backups, etc. Anything remotely important is already backed up 3 different places.

fug

>btrfs
I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

I have two separate machines, one with current data and one as a backup. I have roughly 30tb raw storage.

>7/8 of your data is fine!
The Nvidia of data integrity.

Attached: smug looking anime girls with condenscending looks on their face.png (181x220, 27K)