Multiple drives of a lower (1-2tb) capacity might be more expensive, but they’d technically be more resistant to a single failure over fewer larger (4tb+) drives when in a pool/array.
Multiple drives of a lower (1-2tb) capacity might be more expensive, but they’d technically be more resistant to a single failure over fewer larger (4tb+) drives when in a pool/array.
More drives mean more heat and more power usage. Better to have two large with parity enabled. The chances of both failing is very rare. Should be using an online backup service like backblaze or having a plan to take a copy off-site.
Yup, already keep an off-site copy of the important stuff via Hetzner but my Linux ISOs are the big data hogs
If they’re sequential off the manufacturing line and there’s a fault, they’re more likely to fail around the same time and in the same manner, since you put the surviving drive under a LOT of stress when you start a rebuild after replacing the dead drive.
Like, that’s the most likely scenario to lose multiple drives and thus the whole array.
I’ve seen far too many arrays that were built out of a box of drives lose one or two, and during rebuild lose another few and nuke the whole array, so uh, the thought they probably won’t both fail is maybe true, but I wouldn’t wager my data on that assumption.
(If you care about your data, backups, test the backups, and then even more backups.)