Do you buy 4TB or 6TB hard drives today? I know 3TB is dogshit

8, nigga.

>>58957389
>I know 3TB is dogshit because of the weird platters being used on most brands
Wrong

>>58957389
>I know 3TB is dogshit because of the weird platters being used on most brands.
Trying to identify which drives (or which brand of drives) are most reliable is a fool's game. Drives are usually pretty good these days, but sometimes they die. Deal with it. Use redundancy and backups. Buy drives based on price per terabyte.

>>58957676
>Buy drives based on price per terabyte.

Fuck no, buy drives based on price per years of warranty.

File: hard drive failure rate.jpg (83KB, 720x820px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 720x820px

>>58957676
>>58957389

>>58957720
So Seagate makes the best 4TB?

I'm sticking with 4TB HGST drives. My current one's got nearly 14000 power on hours and still going strong

>>58957720
Unless you're running hundreds of drives stuck very densely into a rackmount enclosure, I don't see how you can consider those results applicable.

>>58957720
>Back"Don't just spread our study graphs without proper explanations since they are misleading"Blaze

>>58957389
1TB. What the fuck do you need 4TB for?

>>58957794
Storing 4TB of data

tfw bought a 3TB WD Red

Highest failure rate of any WD drive. I thought the 3TB failure shit was only with Seagate drives.

>>58957900
It is the platters for 3TB drives

>>58957676
>Buy drives based on price per terabyte.
This.
Then ZFS on two external drives to mirror.
Drives cost money but data is irreplaceable. You can have both cheap drives and data integrity. If a drive is threatened you can replace it on the cheap.

File: 2364.png (16KB, 535x179px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 535x179px

>mfw since 3 years ago

This might change once I get my GPU and start downloading games, though

>>58958030
I have more forced bi JOI videos than you have total space. Really makes you think.

File: hard drive reliability.jpg (140KB, 649x785px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 649x785px

>>58957720

File: hdd.png (32KB, 740x585px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 740x585px

>>58957720
>>58958111
fug I got this seagate in early 2014

am I fucked?

File: 2014.jpg (63KB, 560x781px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 560x781px

>>58958150
Not sure, but 2014 was horrible for Seagate HDD buyers. Its a wonder people don't sue them

>>58958182
>ST3000DM001
>ST31500541AS
>ST31500341AS
>WDC WD30EFRX
>ST33000651AS
Consider these models pure garbage, 10-25% annual failure rate

File: blog-lifetime-by-drive-size.jpg (330KB, 1135x898px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1135x898px

HDD bought in 2016 are thankfully decent.

File: 1483213274072.jpg (113KB, 610x481px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 610x481px

>like 4 years later and SSDs are just as expensive

When will they go down in price?

>>58958247
Are you kidding? Prices are much lower.

>>58957389
6tb is best because then you can have 3 partitions of 2tb each. I keep my stuff on the first partition then back up to a raid drive made from the second two partitions

>>58958280
https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/internal-hard-drive/

The other guy >>58958247 is sorta right. The prices have stabalized for past 2 or so years.

This is I think due to the retarded switch to m.2 or the other PCI based SSDs. Instead of getting cheaper SSD space, they went faster SSD speed at same shitty space.

This is either due to anti-trust anti-competitive and illegal acts by nand manufacturers or simple production issues.

>>58958320
Well I think most of the nand makers have been either losing money or just not making much of a profit on it, so they're not eager to fund a big expansion in production and fight a price war to gain market share.

Its easier to make nand faster at the same price than bigger at the same price. The former you can do with tweaking, different controllers, etc. the latter you need either an expensive new fab for a tiny process node, or you just need to spend more die area.

I need new hd's, both solid state and mechanical.
I'm simply waiting for the prices to become reasonable again, and I hope I don't have to wait 6 months or 1 year for that.

>>58958014
>data is irreplaceable

tfw 8 TB of raid z2 on a ECC freenas with UPS, but I haven't backed it up lately because it's 8 damn TB and it takes for fucking ever

>>58958688
Back it up and then push differential snapshots to your backup so it only takes a few minutes afterward.

Make sure you have redundancy on your backup, too.

Oh RAIDz2 is hot garbage in terms of IOPS. A RAID 10 can read at the speed of all drives -individually- and write at the speed of half of them.
Might want to consider redoing your pool in addition to a backup.

5TB or whatever is number 1 on Amazon.

>>58958746
>Oh RAIDz2 is hot garbage in terms of IOPS. A RAID 10 can read at the speed of all drives -individually- and write at the speed of half of them.
Might want to consider redoing your pool in addition to a backup.
depends on what he prefers between space and speed, raid10 might be faster, but the space is n/2, rather than n-2
for a small home setup it might make more sense to not worry much about speed so long as you're hitting a target like being able to saturate a gigabit link, which is a pretty easy target

>>58957720
>>58958182
>>58958223

It's a good thing Backblaze stopped making those graphs.
Don't rely on them, they are made from faulty data, as Backblaze always gets the cheapest HDDs they can find rather than look at quality. Seagate does both horrible cheap drives and amazing expensive ones, they just happen to get the shitty ones (and if you see through their raw data, the good Seagate drives they get are the ones that fail the least, but since they buy so few of them their weight on the final per-brand failure rate is nil).

>>58958851
>as Backblaze always gets the cheapest HDDs they can find rather than look at quality
Well desu honest that's what I've also been doing when I've bought drives

Only recently have I bought a couple WD Reds because they're (((supposedly))) NAS drives

>>58958798
For a hobbyist data-hoarder the big selling point of mirrors is that they simplify expansion. You can add or replace disks two at a time to expand the array.

Not that I'm salty over btrfs not having its shit together or anything.

>>58958851
You believe most people buy the most expensive HDD models?

People will look for deals whenever. The data is right in bulk. However individual experiences may differ. Statistics is statistics, you shouldn't feel butthurt because you bought a shitty drive and that someone calls out its shittiness.

>>58958150
no your two gens better than the bad versions
btw i own
>ST3000DM001 3TB and it hasn't failed (yet)

the bad version is
>ST3000DM000

trust me no one has one of these any more lmao,

>>58957389
I got a 5TB one a year ago and it's almost half filled.
Has been noisy as fuck since day one though, is louder than my actual PC.

>>58958940
>Not that I'm salty over btrfs not having its shit together or anything.
i wish they'd get it done, the feature set is perfect for small home setups, namely the flexibility to add/remove one disk at a time and convert raid levels without so much as /unmounting/ the volume
the fact it exists has made everything else seem like a compromise

2x2TB WD Red + 3TB Toshiba master race right here

Im still waiting for HDD prices to drop.

>>58959025
I think $30/TB (for new drives) is the best we're gonna see, anon. Though if you're waiting for the larger capacities to fall to that level that's understandable

>>58959007
every new kernel version I bore over the new features articles on phoronix looking for a hint that they might finally fix it. Seems like they just don't give a shit about RAID56, probably because Facebook isn't using it and they're the guys paying Chris Mason. I know that's why they turned down some guy who had a patch that added 3, 4, 5, and 6-way pairity to the RAID code.

File: Forbryllad.jpg (26KB, 360x288px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 360x288px

>>58958208
>ST3000DM001
THESE FUCKERS

>>58959101
feels like only yesterday i first tried out btrfs raid5 and was hopeful it'd be ready for serious usage soon
that was in 2012, and the official state has only gotten worse with the somewhat recent realization that raid56 is fucked

at least the rest of btrfs is fine, i'm using it atop mdadm

>>58959237
as far as I know RAID 1 was and is good to go. Then again getting higher space efficiency from RAID 6, with the easy add and rebalance and shit, was always kinda the point.

>>58957389
I have the exact same HDD in your pic.

>>58958283
>6tb is best because then you can have 3 partitions of 2tb each. I keep my stuff on the first partition then back up to a raid drive made from the second two partitions

Is this bait?

>>58957389
No but I have a 2TB drive in my laptop.
When I can get a 4TB drive that's 9.5mm or thinner I might upgrade.

>>58957721
learn how to read graphs

>>58957720
What a bullshit graph

I own 3 1TB seagates and none of them have died. Purchased one 500gb toshiba SSHD 8 months ago and lost all my work files.

>>58957389
I have a set of Toshiba DT01ACA300 3TB drives. Haven't had one die yet. (oldest says it was manufactured in 2013)

I'll switch to 6TB when the price goes below $100.

>>58957806
/reply

>>58959007
Not to shill Windows server, but refs does this and it's super nice

File: canstockphoto2930006.jpg (44KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x531px

>>58958223
>bought a 3TB Seagate Desktop drive in 2014

cyka

>>58959949
According to that graph Seagate is the preferred brand. You have to take failure rate into account anyway if you want to have reliability.

>>58960506
>SSHD
Not even once.

>>58957389
6-8TB are value/$ right now. For me personally 8 is somehow less $/TB than 6, dunno why.

File: Capture.jpg (11KB, 265x68px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 265x68px

>>58957720
I dont really like their results, but just go look at the reviews for any o those high failure drives, they are all over the place


I have been running the same 3x WD 2TB greens in RAID0 for the past 7 years in a PC with 90% uptime, and I have not had a single fucking failure.

I want to upgrade my storage, and get HGST drives, but I'm so worried about infant death that I have not. Running low on space too, and this is after I deleted a ton of shit.

>>58958223
>have a 1.5 TB Seagate external from 4 yrs ago
Lmao

>>58962246
>82% non fail

>>58962432
Still works and I have all my anime backed up on it
Dodged a 18% bullet though, but too bad HGST HDDs are so expensive

>>58962493
>have all my anime backed up on it
It's ok if it does fail then I guess.

>>58958150

Just do full backups and/or raid1.

>>58962584
>raid1.
Twice as likely to fail.

3tb is the sweet spot price wise

>>58962617
wut

>>58962584
>full backup or raid 1

Niggah full backups AND raid1 if anything, definitely not OR. Raid was never and will never be a form of backup.

>>58962504
Shut up nerd

>>58957720
>>58958111
>tfw WD, 3TB and 2016
JUST

>>58962663
doesn't 3tb have a different platter arrangement that makes it less reliable, making 4tb worth the extra little?

>>58957389

1TB or 2TB in extreme cases. Eight 1TB disks will perform better than one 8TB disk; they are also faster to wipe and more robust to failures. Anyone buying drives bigger than 2TB is a hopeless retard and doesn't know what he's doing.

>>58962827
The extra little is actually quite a bit. All of my 4 Toshiba's still twerk.

>>58962897
In Canadia its 116$ for 3tb and 170 for 4tb making it like 15$ over the same $ per TB

>>58962922

>Canadia

Where this shithole be? I can get 2TB for $45, which is cheaper per TB and also has all the advantages of being just the perfect size.

>>58962947
yeah

>>58962947
you know that almost exclusively applies to the US right? Not many other places cost that little (for many computer parts)

what do you guys store on your hard drives anyway? is it just to fuel your porn hoarding addiction?

>>58962971
They probably horde cheesy pizza

>>58962971
Right now I have 5TB of movies and 5.1TB of TV. I'd have a lot more but I'm out of space.

>>58962994
you know you don't need to store it and just download it as you watch it right?

I literally just bought a couple of 8GB WD Reds. Never bought anything bigger than 3TB before this. Times a changing.

>>58963014
>8GB

>>58963006
My internet is very slow, it takes me 8-10 hours to download one movie if it's on the larger side. Redownloading is not an option and having a system setup to immediately play a huge range of stuff is pretty neat. I have it set up to play on my tv too so it's useful to watch with others.

>>58960506

>This information across tens of thousands of drives is wrong because my anecdotal data regarding 3 drives says other wise

Let me guess, American?

>>58963023
Why is that bad?

>>58963317
he's saying 8GB is bigger than 3TB

>>58963331
Then he's a retard who can't read.

>>58957389
> Do you buy 4TB or 6TB hard drives today?
I do, for a company I work with. SAS MASTERRACE.

Who needs that much porn?

>>58964725
SAS seems pointless with RAIDs desu, maybe at enterprise level but for home usage...

File: 1486733570641.jpg (217KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1200x675px

>>58965680
>1TB seagate array
>Average disk speed of 80-110MB/s

>Buy up two cheap SAS drives
>Benchmark them
>~220MB/s read speeds

Hot damn. They're not even any fancy 10-15k stuff. Just regular old seagate SAS.
They're not horribly expensive, used, these days.

>>58958049
really fires the neurons

>>58962617
you're thinking of raid0

raid1 is when you mirror two (or more) drives so they always contain the same data, if one fails, you can keep using the other

>>58958681

it'll be two years before they finally go down to where they should be right now.

>>58958320
>This is either due to anti-trust anti-competitive and illegal acts by nand manufacturers or simple production issues.

all of the above.

>>58957720
This totally neutral infographic was financed by HGST. Come again.

>>58963140
>>58962994
how often do you watch 10TB of shows?

>>58962971
anime torrents are 50gb per show

>>58968359
Got some sauce on that?

>>58958983
I've got an ST33000651AS, am I boned?

>>58957389
>I know

No. You don't "know" shit. Go away, get read up on the tech, stop wasting pixels here with your stupid.

>>58958030
>This might change once I get my GPU and start downloading games
My 128 GB SSD is now nearly full of games.

>>58961893
>3x WD 2TB greens in RAID0
Absolute savage. It's like you want to lose data.

>>58957389

3,5" hard drives are dogshit in general. They are loud as fuck and vibrate like crazy

2,5" HDD master race reporting in. Will eventually switch over to all SSD when price comes down

>>58963140
And you never watched a single movie again.
You are just a hoarder, that's a mental health problem.
It's just not so blatantly obvious to your environment when you are just hoarding data.

>>58968411
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-reliability-stats-q1-2016/
>We often get asked why we don’t buy more WDC and Toshiba drives. The short answer is that we’ve tried. These days we need to purchase drives in reasonably large quantities, 5,000 to 10,000 at a time. We do this to keep the unit cost down and so we can reliably forecast our drive cost into the future. For Toshiba we have not been able to find their drives in sufficient quantities at a reasonable price. For WDC, we sometimes get offered a good price for the quantities we need, but before the deal gets done something goes sideways and the deal doesn’t happen. This has happened to us multiple times, as recently as last month. We would be happy to buy more drives from Toshiba and WDC, if we could, until then we’ll continue to buy our drives from Seagate and HGST.

The simple answer is they won't sell them to them in quantity at a reasonable cost. Hence "financed by HGST".

>>58961893
delete 160 more GB and get 2x 4GB in R1

>>58967438
Is there a more space efficient RAID similar to RAID 1 but without a 1:1 drive mirror ratio? I want something that will enable me to survive a dead drive or two but maximize the amount of storage I still have available. I assume one of the raid levels with metadata can do this

>>58968525
>HGST gives better bulk deals
>thus HGST is financing companies that take advantage of these lower prices
You're dumb.

>>58962686
>Raid was never and will never be a form of backup
Only self-important tryhards say this shit. Raid is absolutely a form of backup, just not off-site or redundant backup. It will in fact save you from data loss to some degree. Fuck off low-level IT support.

>>58968593
Perhaps not directly, but if the other companies charged similar prices, the graph would not be so heavily biased towards HGST.

>>58962947
>I can get 2TB for $45
link pls

>>58968608
Not really

>>58968600
RAID doesn't protect you against enough stuff to disregard it as a form of backup. It's redundancy, nothing more and nothing less.

>>58968585
raid0: speed of all drives combined, space of all drives combined, lose any drive and you lose all data, only use for temporary/unimportant data
raid1: read speed of all drives, write speed of one (worst) drive, space of one drive
raid5: speed up to that of all drives minus one, space of all drives minus one, can lose any one drive without loss
raid6: speed up to that of all drives minus TWO, space of all drives minus TWO, can lose any TWO drives without loss
raid10: aka "1+0", combination of 1 and 0, basically, it's a stripe (0) of multiple mirrors (1), read speed up to all disks, write speed of half the disks, space of half the disks, can lose all but one disk out of every mirror

>>58968666
sounds like I should go with raid6, thanks

>>58968687
yea, raid6 is pretty common, often a decent balance of speed/space/redundancy

some people still swear by raid10, but the main reason for that is that raid10 doesn't require parity calculations like raid6 does, which puts load on the host CPU
nowadays cpus are so powerful that it's not much of a strain

>just bought a 3TB WD Blue

JUST

>>58968715
Doesn't raid6 write speeds equal the parity drives? So a 6 HDD raid6 would only write as fast as two drives and raid5 one?

>>58957389
>TB
The largest hard drive I've ever personally bought was 320 GB.

>>58958283
Damn, like in do with my 1080p monitor, i put a virtual resolution of 7680x1440 and then i split it into 3 distinct monitors with the nvidia tool. That way i have a triple monitor setup with much less money.

>>58968776
>That way i have a triple monitor setup with much less money.
...but how do you see the other monitors
what is this autistic shit

>caring about HDD lifespan

That's what backups are for. Either they fail within warranty period in which case who cares or they fail after in which case buy from some one else.

I've owned 40+ HDDs and have 10 in use right now between 1.5 and 4tb, including a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, the other three died.

>>58968775
I'm so sorry

>>58968811
I'd rather care and buy HDDs less often thanks to buying better drives. Feel free to keep wasting your money though.

>>58968844
That's my point. If I notice lots of similar drives failing I will avoid them since reliability data is hard to come by other than 420backblaze. This has only happened with barracuda 7200.11 though.

>>58968593
You don't understand the basics of economics dumbfuck. You are making yourself look fuckin stupid.

File: a.png (9KB, 344x113px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 344x113px

>>58968772
no, it's the read/write speed of all but one drive (5) or two drives (6)
raid5/6 are "striped with single/double distributed parity"

pic related, my 4 disk raid5, notice that the writes to md0 (the raid) equals approximately the load of all but one disk

>>58968776
That's not exactly a multiple monitor setup. Pretty much the whole point of a multiple monitor setup is to have multiple screens viewable at once. What you're describing is more of a multiple virtual desktop solution.

>>58968499
>preferring 2,5'' hard drives
>not ssd
Being this tech illiterate. Why are you even on this board you idiot?

>>58968864
Oh look, it's the know-it-all who just started HS Economics

>>58968585
>Is there a more space efficient RAID similar to RAID 1 but without a 1:1 drive mirror ratio?
Go to your local IT reseller and let them configure your complete system because you are obviously too retarded to google for "raid levels".

>>58968885
>Oh look, it's the know-it-all who just started HS Economics
Are you fuckin retarded?
HGST gives them thousands of dollars in discount, therefore they write in favour of them, so they don't lose their discount. How can anyone be so completely ignorant and dull not to understand such a basic thing? No one needs a HS whatever shit your calling it for that you just need to be not a complete fuckin idiot.

>>58968923
>HGST gives them thousands of dollars in discount, therefore they write in favour of them, so they don't lose their discount
prove how they altered the data, childish retard

>>58968866
All raid calculators I've seen show a 4 drive raid6 as having 2x read speed and no wrote speed gain. Are you using a hardware raid controller or something?

>>58968958
no, just MDADM software raid in linux

>>58968964
I messed around with 3x3tb drives using mdadm in raod5 before. Each drive gives me ~150mb/s and combined I got over 300mb/a reads and 150mb/s writes. Was I doing something wrong? Raid10 performance with my other Dermot drives is spot on, 4x read and 2x write speeds over a single drive.

>>58958049
>forced bi JOI videos
what did he mean by this?

>>58969012
do some reading into tweaking and testing mdadm raids, there might be something you can do about it (assuming your cpu isn't the bottleneck, if it can't calculate parity fast enough, then you're just going to have to use a faster cpu)

>>58969732
I have played around with it but this was over a year ago and I would have just followed guides on Google. I use a Xeon e3-1240v2 so that shouldn't bottleneck it at all.

>>58968504
Actually most of the movies I have I've watched 2-3 times. Especially recently, I'm watching almost my full collection over again with a friend.

Some of the movies I've seen 5 or 6 times.

File: nas.jpg (632KB, 1325x909px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1325x909px

>>58957389
8TB are best

>>58969843
Fuck I hate DSM. Can't wait to move away from it.

>>58968504
>he only watches movies once

>>58969856
whatcha moving to?

>>58969875
Just a normal linux distro, tossing up at the moment but I'll probably just go with Arch since it's what I know best. CentOS _could_ be fun I guess but it's repos suck, never liked Debian. Although I guess I could always try FreeBSD too, that's actually probably my second choice.

Then I'll just use ZoL or ZFS because it's easy.

>>58969823
here's what i've personally changed;
component drives: set NCQ depth to 1
md: stripe_cache_size to 16384, read_ahead_kb to 65536
before i could do a bit over 200MB/s reads, now over 300MB/s pretty consistently after changing those

here's my udev rules (so they're applied automatically/persistently), if they prove useful

SUBSYSTEM=="block", KERNEL=="md*", ACTION=="change", TEST=="md/stripe_cache_size", ATTR{md/stripe_cache_size}="16384"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", KERNEL=="md*", ACTION=="change", TEST=="queue/read_ahead_kb", ATTR{queue/read_ahead_kb}="65536"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", KERNEL=="sd*", ACTION=="change", TEST=="device/queue_depth", ATTR{device/queue_depth}="1"

With drives this big these days raid 5 is pretty obsolete right? What raid type is best for these huge drives?

>>58970193
Yeah, because with huge drives and huge arrays there's a good chance of hitting a read error during a rebuild if you lose a drive. And since you're down a drive, the array isn't redundant during the rebuild and can't correct it. RAID 6 fixes this.

Mirrors technically have the same problem but in practice are much safer, since a mirror scrubs and resilvers fast, and in ZFS if you have warning that a drive is shaky you can attach a spare to the mirror and resilver onto it to make a three-way mirror, and then detach the failing drive. You can't pull shenanigans like that with pairity RAID. Well, you could with btrfs, if only they'd get off their asses and fix RAID56.

>>58969957
Cheers m8 I'll look into it again.

>>58970193
RAID6 is still considered safe by most even at enterprise level. However they are beginning to say that moving to 3 disk redundancy is probably the way to go. This is enterprise though.

Honestly while the size of the disk matters it's more about the size of the array.

File: portable-hard-drive-seagate-backup-plus-slim.jpg (165KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 630x420px

>>58957389
these are pretty great

>>58968504
You only watch your movies once? Sad!

Digital hoarding is best, as it won't cause problems in the physical world.

>>58968936
>prove how they altered the data, childish retard
Prove they didnt.

Her is your (you).

>>58971273
That's not how burden of proof works

>>58971241
>You only watch your movies once? Sad!
I am intelligent enough to grasp what a movie wants to tell me on the first time. And nearly all movies made nowadays are not worth watching twice.

That excludes classics like lotr, star wars and general masterpieces. But they are so rare that they don't use much space.

>>58968504
Not him but I have a small collection of movies stored on my hard drive and I have watched them all several times. And I have shitty rips. If I had a large library of br rips I could easily see it getting into the multiterabyte range. Just accept that people use their computers differently man

File: 1448769094184.gif (171KB, 354x285px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 354x285px

>>58971290
>I am intelligent enough to grasp what a movie wants to tell me on the first time. And nearly all movies made nowadays are not worth watching twice.

Wow the edge on this guy

Someone brought me a 2TB seagate surveillance HDD.

What the fuck should I do with it? I have trouble filling a 320GB HDD.

>>58971405
i'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic

most movies are only really intended to be watched once

>>58957389
a bunch of 4tb st4000dm000, they are quite, reliable so far don't need helium or some other bullshit. 2 in raid 0 on my PC + 2 for backup.

>>58957900
Shit I just bought WD Red 3TB last July 2016. How fucked am I?

>>58971870
It's still a low as fuck chance, just proportionally high.

>>58958955
My problem is not with their choice, is their inconsistency. WD suddently started being shit for them and they didn't mention they stopped buying Blues and started buying Greens.
Nothing against getting the best deal possible, what pisses me off is that they compare apple with oranges.

>>58968923
They give those discounts to anyone who buys in bulk, you dumb fucking shit.

>>58971569
Surveil

>>58971586
I watched Max Max 1,2,3 about 20 times but that's on VHS

>>58972809
Don't have anything to surveil with

And installing windows on it seems like a cruel joke (cuz my windows HDD died)

>>58972943
I could never really like them, but I guess 2 is ok.

>>58971586
A good movie is watchable for more than its 'message'. In fact 'messages' are ruining movies.

>>58972960
Then sell it

>>58971870
Probably okie dokie

>>58973129
can't

>>58957720
>HGST
>a Western Digital Company

>>58973274
Yeah, and Lamborghini's owned by Audi.

>>58973317
So you're telling me HGST is the sport car of HDDs?

>>58973343
I'm telling you that just because HGST is owned by WD doesn't mean they can't have better products.

>>58973172
Donate it

>>58973343
Stop being a pedantic cocksniffer

>>58973522
>>58973468
you started it with your inane retard logic, samefag

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 11.09.29 AM.png (18KB, 376x107px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 376x107px

>>58973539
Okay, kid

>>58973506
I'd burn in hell first

File: 1487129484171.jpg (69KB, 611x548px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 611x548px

>>58958247
You're wrong. 4 years ago I bought my first SSD, it was a 256gb Samsung 830 and it cost $250. Last black friday I bought a 1tb Samsung 850 Evo for $220.

File: 1423062514395.jpg (47KB, 463x494px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 463x494px

>>58973539
>samefag

>>58969193
Jack off instructional videos

>>58957720
>tfw 2015 seagate and 2016 wd blue.
JUST

Are smaller drives more reliable? I still only buy 1 or 1,5 TB ones

>>58974006
there's always some specific models that are more or less reliable, but no general trend across size classes.

1TB drives are actually more expensive per terabyte these days than 3 and 4TB drives, because (new) drives never really go below about $50 no matter what.

File: i_can_change_that_too.png (5KB, 466x106px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 466x106px

>>58973550
>>58973607
>trying to prove by picture
Sure thing, bucko.

>>58974068
>>58974053
samefag

>>58957389
1TB HDD, 250GB SSD

I'll be building a FreeNAS box in the coming weeks (will get a contract as a part time dev for 2k yuros/month while still being a student, bretty comfy)
Already have a Node 304 case, super pumped for this shit
Will go 6 drive Z2, probably WD Red 2 TB. HGST seems better price/TB but they are too loud when running 24/7 in a home setting

6x Western Digital WD Red 2TB, 3.5", SATA 6Gb/s
Intel Pentium G3220, 2x 3.00GHz, boxed
2x Crucial DIMM 8GB, DDR3L-1600, CL11, ECC
Supermicro X10SLL-F
Noctua NH-L12
Fractal Design Node 304
Seasonic G-Series G-550 550W

4TB HGST

>>58957389
Wtf do you need over 1tb for?

>>58957389
WD blue or barracuda pro pick one

>>58974483
it's super useful when you want to contain more than 1tb of data

Not worth making another thread for this, so I'll just ask here:

at what point do you see it necessary to have at least 1 mirror / redundant backup?

If I was going to buy a 6tb drive, I would feel like it's too risky to put all of that data somewhere without at least 1 exact copy.

>>58957389
8TB Helium drives.

File: blin.png (4KB, 343x107px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 343x107px

>>58974115

>>58974500
when you don't wanna lose your data

>>58974500
Do what I do and buy drives in pairs.

>>58974574
>>58974521
samefag

>>58974624
that seems to go without saying, but what kind of person wants 6tb to store data, but all of that data isnt worth enough to have a backup?

that 6tb of data is worth enough to spend money to store, but NOT worth enough to backup?

>>58974676
>but what kind of person wants 6tb to store data, but all of that data isnt worth enough to have a backup
A person who's storing 6TB of data that can simply be torrented again.

>>58974713
Alright, I'll accept that.

>>58958111
>Backblaze
>using consumergrade hardware in racks
sure the failure rate of a green is absolutely not higher if it sits in a 40 drive rack besides other drives

>>58974732
I know at least 2 people with 200TB setups that have no backup, just good redundancy. Worst case scenario (unlikely) they just redownload everything).

>>58962850
t. neckbeard neet with no real enterprise grade storage solutions

>>58962850
But I don't want 80 disks.

File: 1482243394553.gif (360KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 540x300px

>>58957389
>use shitgate external drives for weekly backups
>2 of them died already
>my 9 years old caviar black and 8 years old FUCKING GREEN (former external backup drive I removed from case and stuck in computer) are still alive and well

Now I just backup my main drive and my 1Tb "backlog" drive, fuck everything, I'm not buying more drives till 60TB SSDs are affordable

>>58976267
I have a 5400rpm segate from an eee pc 1000 that is still alive and working, after covering the exhaust hole with duck tape for a year, and traveling multiple times, unknown to whether the drive had been properly powered down.

>>58976327
I have a maxtor drive older than you that is still actually working

What is your motherfucking point

>>58976466
I have a maxtor from a win 98 machine, it still works... I would hope at some point backwards compatibility becomes pointless.

>>58974443
Motherboard is microATX but case is miniITX

File: 876876.jpg (168KB, 610x435px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 610x435px

>SSD DISCS ARE GOING TO DIE FAST
>DO NOT BUY THEM!!!!!!!!
>GET HDD YOU RETARD LISTEN TO US, PC EXPERTS!!!!!
>SSD IS A MEME

What now, imbeciles?
It worked almost for a decade.