• fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Double check that symbol there.

    Raid 5 is a great balance of capacity and useful storage with 3 drives. You get 1 drive worth of fault tolerance and 2 drives worth of capacity. I personally have mismatched drives so I run raid 1 in between the matching sizes, and jbod between the raid 1 mirrors (well the zfs equivilent) And my really important data is backed up onto two more drives in raid 10.

    • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      The person I replied to said

      I’m uncomfortable storing 16TB worth of data on one drive

      as a criticism of using a single 32TB drive.

      I argue that a single 32TB drive is less risk than using 2 16TB drives. Am I wrong?

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Christ alive.

        No. Actually. The 32TB drive is a single point of failure for all your data.

        Splitting it means you have 2 points of failure but for only half your data.

        From an integrity and availability standpoint the two disk solution, while wildly ridiculous and dumb as fuck, is actually better.

        Both solutions are ridiculous and dumb and are not sufficient backup.