181–190 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it's hard to blame that on Seagate. The AFR is their fault.
It's not Seagate's fault, but it would behove them to clamp down on such activity by authorised resellers. After all, it's not just the buyer getting ripped off; it's also Seagate. A customer paid for a brand new Seagate drive and Seagate didn't see a penny of it.
> I have been authoring the various Drive Stats reports for the past ten years and this will be my last one. I am retiring, or perhaps in Drive Stats vernacular, it would be “migrating.” Thank you for all these reports over the years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Often you will read online of people experiencing multiple failures from drives purchased from the same batch I'll toss in on that anecdata. This has happened to me a several times. In all these cases we were dealing with drives with more or less sequential serial numbers. In two instances they were just cache drives for our CDN nodes. Not a big deal, but I sure kept the remote hands busy those weeks trying to keep…
This has been the "conventional wisdom" for a very long time. Is this one of those things that get "lost with time" and every generation has to rediscover it? Like, 25+ years ago I would've bought hard drives for just my personal usage in a software raid making sure I don't get consecutive serial numbers, but ones that are very different. I'd go to my local hardware shop and ask them specifically for that. They'd sho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact for home users backup is WAY more important than RAID, because your NAS down for a (restore time) is not that important, but data loss is forever.
For essential personal data you're right, but a very common use case for a home NAS is a media server. The library is usually non-essential data - annoying to lose, but not critical. Combined with its large size, it's usually hard to justify a full offsite backup. RAID offers a cost-effective way to give it some protection, when the alternative is nothing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to restore my media server without a backup would cost me around a dozen hours of my time. 2 bucks a month to back up to Glacier with rclone’s crypt backend is easily worth it.
Have you checked the costs for restoring from Glacier? It's not the backing up part that's expensive. I would not be surprised if you decided to spend the dozen hours of your time after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to restore my media server without a backup would cost me around a dozen hours of my time. 2 bucks a month to back up to Glacier with rclone’s crypt backend is easily worth it.
How are you hitting that pricing? S3 "Glacier Deep Archive"? Standard S3 is $23/TB/mo. Backblaze B2 is $6/TB/mo. S3 Glacier Instant or Flexible Retrieval is about $4/TB/mo. S3 Glacier Deep Archive is about $1/TB/mo. I take it you have ~2TB in deep archive? I have 5TB in Backblaze and I've been meaning to prune it way down. Edit: these are raw storage costs and I neglected transfer. Very curious as my sibling comment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody should ever have peace of mind about a single drive. You probably have odds around 5% that the storage drive fails each cycle, and another 5% for the OS drive. That's significant. And in your particular situation, 3 refurbished WUH721414ALE6L4 are the same total price. If you put those in RAIDZ1 then that's 28TB with about as much reliability as you can hope to have in a single device. (With backups still bein…
My understanding is that with the read error rate and capacity of modern hard drives, statistically you can't reliably rebuild a raid5/raidz1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My most recent drive [...] it should be fine for the next few years until it's time for the cycle to repeat." The amount of time they stay on a single drive.
Drive manufacturers often publish the AFR. From there you can do the math to figure out what sort of redundancy you need. Rule of thumb is that the AFR should be in the 1-2% range. I haven't looked at BB's data, but I'm sure it supports this. Note, disk failure rates and raid or similar solutions should be used when establishing an availability target, not for protecting against data loss. If data loss is a concern,…
But yes, I've done the math. I'm just going with the BB numbers here, and after a few years it adds up. The way I understand "peace of mind", you can't have it with a single drive. Nice and simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody should ever have peace of mind about a single drive. You probably have odds around 5% that the storage drive fails each cycle, and another 5% for the OS drive. That's significant. And in your particular situation, 3 refurbished WUH721414ALE6L4 are the same total price. If you put those in RAIDZ1 then that's 28TB with about as much reliability as you can hope to have in a single device. (With backups still bein…
My understanding is that with the read error rate and capacity of modern hard drives, statistically you can't reliably rebuild a raid5/raidz1
If you're regularly testing your drive's ability to be heavily loaded for a few hours, you don't have much chance of failure during a rebuild.