/g/, do you trust refurbished drives? I'm in dire need of

>>51516001
do it

>>51516001
You can get 4TB Seagates for about $110 new, so I have no fucking idea why you would try to save ten bucks by trusting a refurb for your data.

I've never bought "refurbished" drives, but I deal with a lot of older/used shit and honestly I'll readily trust an old drive over a brand new one since most of the shoddy ones usually die out within their first year of service, the ones that survive will usually just keep on running as long as you treat them well.

>>51516042
I thought the seagates had a fucking terrible failure rate. Upwards of 40%

>>51516057

That's the 3TB. The 4TB are on par with the rest of the industry. Check Backblaze's reliability data for models.

>>51516071
the $115 drives are not ones backblaze seems to talk about; plus there's only a 2 year warranty.

But I need to storage really, really badly so I'll probably hop on dese.

>>51516050
Refurbished drives ARE those drives that died out already, they've just been repaired.

>>51516057
That's /g/ propaganda. Go look up your own stats. I've used a mixture of drives for years and never had any issues.

>>51516001
>/g/, do you trust refurbished drives?

Nope. New and high-quality hard drives are so cheap right now there is no real reason to risk it. You can buy a brand new good Hitachi 1tb drive for fiddy bucks.

>>51516001
>redundancy in media storage
what the fuck is the point?

If it has a decent warranty, is a decent amount cheaper than buying new, and I'm putting it in RAID anyway or otherwise wouldn't lose anything if it died, then sure.

>>51518064

>What's the point of redundant storage

I can't believe it's not bait.

>>51516001
Just buy 6TB or even 8TB drives. Don't make your arrays fuck huge in terms of drives if you don't have to.

>>51518118
>RAID is a form of backup

get fucked

>>51518142

>implying at all that's what I was implying

Nigger what.

>>51518140
2TB hard drives from good manufacturers are as low as $30/TB, and 3TBs are slightly less.
6TBs are $40+ per TB.
You could literally take 3x3TB drives, make a RAID 5 array, and have 6TB storage capacity WITH redundancy, instead of spending the same money and getting 6TB capacity with less speed and zero redundancy.

File: hgst.png (22KB, 959x329px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 959x329px

>>51516001
>though they're HGST
Are you saying that like it's a bad thing? They're pretty much the best drive manufacturer and have been since Seagate went down the shitter circa ~2008.

>>51518181
Your SATA ports are also $30-80 a piece (calculated to a computer or NAS box that runs SW RAID on Linux), and then are the power consumption per port and other stuff that ties into operation costs.

Which is why Google and Rackspace and so on are typically using newer drives, despite using mostly commodity hardware like we do.

>>51518195
>seagate is bad

maybe i've been lucky not to buy their shit 7200.11 1.5/3tb drives but i've been running seagate for a long time as they are the cheapest, haven't had any problems yet

going back you could avoid hgst because they produced the infamous ibm deathstar back in the day

>>51518118
>spending hundreds of dollars extra so that you don't have to worry about losing your 10tb anime porn collection

This is why no one likes /g/

>>51518242
>Your SATA ports are also $30-80 a piece
>SW RAID
I'm not stuffing servers into a datacenter here, unless someone is then a port isn't anywhere close to $30-80 a piece.

>>51516001
>refurb
No.
$50 for a refurb 2TB isn't even close to "too good to be true" when you can get a 3TB new for $80.

>>51516001
I don't trust brand new HDDs, let alone refurb ones.

>>51518195
seagate has always been shit.
the only drives I've had die on me since 2000 have been seagate drives

>>51518282
No, that's for your private computer's ports and SATA bays and PSU and so on. Even if you build your computer cheap like this:

http://blog.brianmoses.net/2015/05/diy-nas-econonas-2015.html

You still end up with ~$300 / 6 ports = $50 per port, without any cost put on your time or the operation of the machine or whatever. Most people here surely built something more expensive, too.

I'm sure you can get cheaper per port when you're using SATA port multipliers and accept the slowdown.

>>51518248
>tfw I had a 7200.11 1tb that died

>>51518286
what about refurbished 3TB for $70

>>51518326
Are you aware that there's this thing called a "SATA card" that you can install, giving you more SATA ports?
There's even this thing called a RAID card that does all that and RAID.

>>51518353
> Are you aware that there's this thing called a "SATA card" that you can install, giving you more SATA ports?
Yes? They are why you might somewhat realistically get down to $30 / port if you planned this right.

> There's even this thing called a RAID card that does all that and RAID.
Those are stupid as fuck if you want an economical build. If you want something useful, you'll pay like $30 per port on the card alone, no PSU or case or PCI slot or whatever costs factored in.

>>51518395
But the entire premise was that it was better to get less larger drives than more smaller drives.
Unless you're actually maxing out the number if drives you can conceivably have, that's not an issue.

$30 a port is excessively high if you have one or more SATA cards, any old shitbox can serve as a NAS because the speeds will get bottlenecked by the network anyway unless you go above GbE.

> If you want something useful, you'll pay like $30 per port on the card alone
Not at all, a PERC H700 is $100 for 8 SAS/SATA ports, and doesn't have any glaring issues by today's standards (6gb/s, doesn't have 2.2TB+ issues).

>>51518421
> But the entire premise was that it was better to get less larger drives than more smaller drives.
Yes. Because of costs per port - the case, PSU, PCI controllers or mainboard with more SATA ports onboard, and so on.

As well as operation costs with power and all that, the cost of replacements over time (many drives fail more frequently than fewer drives on average) and maybe your own time.

> $30 a port is excessively high if you have one or more SATA cards
No, it's pretty cheap actually for an average-ish performance setup (something that -as a whole, with RAID and all- performs not too different from a local drive overall).

If you're fine with 20 drives attached to USB 2.0 hubs, then perhaps not, but that's not even a setup that is even just sane for RAID, never mind for you as user.

> any old shitbox can serve as a NAS because the speeds will get bottlenecked by the network anyway unless you go above GbE
If that were the problem, you'd presumably have to operate MORE shitboxes in your case, driving the cost further up?

But actually, this is mostly about storage and presumably "reasonable" access speeds for single or a few users at most, one (or a few bonded) GbE ports will do fine.

>>51518505
>Yes. Because of costs per port - the case, PSU, PCI controllers or mainboard with more SATA ports onboard, and so on.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Cost per port is IRRELEVANT unless are/would be out of ports.
If I need 6TB of storage, ignoring redundancy, and I can get that via 1x6TB, 2x3TB, or 3x2TB, and I have 8 ports/slots free, then there's no reason to go for the 6TB option if it's not the cheapest.

>As well as operation costs with power and all that
A hard drive takes what, 10W tops?
Whoop dee fucking doo, it costs me an extra 50-60 cents per month per hard drive.

>many drives fail more frequently than fewer drives
Yes, but if you use more drives, redundancy comes at a lower cost proportional to the whole.
e.g. If you want to use 6TB drives, your options are:
>single 6TB drive, no redundancy
>2x6TB in raid 1, you lose half the capacity
>2x6TB in raid 0, suicidal
>3x6TB in raid 5, costs a lot
Whereas 4x2TB in RAID 5 would get you 6TB, with redundancy, for the cost of about one single 6TB drive.

>No, it's pretty cheap actually for an average-ish performance setup
But again, there's no reason to go for an average performance setup, when a shit setup will perform just as well due to network bottleneck. You could go on ebay, get a used Atom board with RAM included for $100 and that would be your CPU+RAM+Mobo+6 sata ports right off the bat.

>>51518601
> Cost per port is IRRELEVANT unless are/would be out of ports.
... you'll probably pay for more ports and maybe a better / extra PSU and a bigger case then, right.

Maybe in your case, you paid for a lot of ports before you needed them, that doesn't make them free.

> Whoop dee fucking doo, it costs me an extra 50-60 cents per month per hard drive.
10W would be 7.3 kilowatt hours per month, at ~35c (german average). So you can add another ~$20 for 5 years in this case.

Obviously you should also add the cost of the processing power / computer that needs to run.

> Yes, but if you use more drives, redundancy comes at a lower cost proportional to the whole.
To get the same overall reliability with more drives, you'll also need to replace and rebuild the array onto new drives faster... but you generally can't have that to a large extent, especially not at home.

With most typical setups, going beyond like 6-8 drives on RAID5 and maybe 20 on RAID6 is quite inadvisable.

> But again, there's no reason to go for an average performance setup, when a shit setup will perform just as well due to network bottleneck.
... no it won't, besides you can add ethernet ports as cheaply as SATA ports and channel bond. Definitely cheaper than operating more computers.

>>51518825
>... you'll probably pay for more ports and maybe a better / extra PSU and a bigger case then, right.
That's making the assumption that a smaller case is cheaper than a larger one of the same quality which is not necessarily true.
Same for a power supply, assuming I want a modular PSU so the cabling isn't a total mess, it's simply not possible to get a modular PSU below a certain capacity.

>$20 for 5 years
80 minutes of work at the local minimum wage over 5 years? What a burden.

>no it won't
A single hard drive can bottleneck 1GbE, and even a shit CPU can serve that out over the common NAS and SAN protocols.

>channel bond
Doesn't increase the throughput of a single TCP/IP stream, unless you do things like linux's balance-rr which doesn't necessarily preserve packet order. Which introduces overhead to the point where four nics gives you about 2.5gb of actual throughput.

>>51518294
This.