Is there anything wrong with using 2.5" 2tb drives instead

>>57014642

Higher failure rate
Slower
Hotter
Louder

>>57014699
false
false
false
false

>>57014642
Enjoy your 2 years mtbf.

>>57014699
Farter

>>57014699
The only thing you got right is slower.

>>57014642
Slower
Less GB per sata port you use
That's about all.
Perfectly fine for storing media, terrible for OS.

>>57014726
nope, he's very much correct.

plus they're more expensive than 3.5" drives

>>57014817
It can't be hotter and louder when it eats a lot less power and spins at only 5400rpm.
Also, the price is equivalent to 3.5" drive per GB now.

>>57014642
if cost per TB isn't important then buy SSDs

if it is, buy 3.5" HDDs

no point unless you're doing a very small build or just have lots of 2.5's laying around

>>57014880
Not OP but I got quite a few from previous laptops that broke.

>>57014845
it can because you're cramming the same amount of storage into a smaller package, you fucking retard

>>57014933
It's not the same amount of storage you fucking retard.

File: 1474418379621.jpg (100KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x500px

>>57014951
>Is there anything wrong with using 2.5" 2tb drives instead of 3.5 2tb drives for a NAS?

>2.5" 2tb drives instead of 3.5 2tb

>2.5" 2tb vs 3.5 2tb

>>57014990
I'm pretty sure he meant inches, not 7TB on 4 2TB drives.

>>57014642
More expensive, slower, and they come in much smaller size.

Can't comment on failure rate.

>>57014990
You are so fucking stupid, you actually believe that energy usage is porportional to the amount of storage in a drive. Stupid ignorant people like you posting on /g/ is what killed /g/.

>>57014699
This + price OP.

>>57015042
that's exactly what he said and exactly what I quoted

2.5" 2TB drive VS 3.5" 2TB drive

learn to read you fucking moron

>>57015080
>forgets about the spinning drives and moving header in a smaller space
l2physics

rotational velocidensity

File: Selection_538.png (9KB, 435x89px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 435x89px

>>57014951

>>57015080
I'm pretty sure he believes that shrinking the same insanely complicated and precise object by a whole inch makes it a lot more prone to failures. It's not about the amount of electricity it draws, but the amount of heat it outputs and the chance of it failing prematurely after a certain amount of usage. Smaller drives contain smaller platters in a smaller space with a smaller head, therefore they can be fucked up by smaller interference.

Or to put it more simply, a thin plastic cup is going to break faster than one made of folded fucking steel. If your aim is to create the world's smallest cup, you'll have to use thin materials.

>>57015119
I thought you were being autistically retarded for some other reason.

File: 1426308150238.png (245KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 500x343px

>>57015182
>autistically retarded

>>57015204
>that's exactly what he said and exactly what I quoted
Yes
>2.5" 2TB drive VS 3.5" 2TB drive
That isn't what he wrote, but I guess I'm the autistic retard for noticing.

>>57015364
he missed a " after 3.5 but only a fucking faggot autist retard would not understand it from the context because you cant get a half drive without cutting it in half and that would make it useless.

File: double prime.png (1KB, 55x84px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 55x84px

>>57015404
Fun fact: The symbol for inch is actually ″, not ".

>>57015495
I'll start using it when it's no longer an ALT-code on my keyboard.

>>57015495
There is no practical reason for having two different symbols that look nearly identical represent different concepts. Using single and double quotation marks to represent units of measurement as well as actual quotes makes much more sense.

>>57015602
>There is no practical reason for having two different symbols that look nearly identical represent different concepts.
But there are historical and other reasons.
Similar reasons as to why American "dumbed-down" spelling is wrong.