this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
41 points (93.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40452 readers
277 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm looking for 16TB HDDs. They'll be for fairly light usage. Immich will be the heaviest thing running on it.

New? Used? Certified? Like this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That assumes you don’t value your time spent dealing with troubles that come.

Like the other person said, it’s fine if you don’t, but for me it’s worth a little upfront cost to have to deal with less ordering new drives, putting the drive in the server, monitor rebuilding of the array, ect…

None of that is an excuse for lack of proper backups. Because even new drives can fail catastrophically.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't understand how this follows from what I said. 🤔 I called for increasing redundancy to compensate for the increased risk of failure. That's the purpose of redundancy. Reducing the time spent dealing with troubles. Unless you consider replacing a disk to be a significant time spent. To me it isn't because it's fairly trivial in my setup. Perhaps it's more work in other setups.

Depending on the prices, you may even be able to add significantly more redundancy by using recertified disks, potentially reducing the risk even more than running new drives. E.g. 4-disk redundancy vs 2-disk for the same price. Running a significantly more redundant setup not only decreases the probability of an array failure but it should also reduce the mechanical load each disk experiences over time which should further decrease failure risk.