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?

  • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I always buy new because time spent fixing a problem or recovering data with a used drive ain’t worth it to me. It may be to you. A manufacturer refurb might be ok, in fact I do buy refurb monitors sometimes, but not data storage.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sounds a bit like not enough redundancy. Once you go into redundant mode, the individual disk quality is no longer nearly as important. 2 or 3 disk redundancy, and you can use whatever garbage comes your way.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        All well and good until you lose another disk 2 days into re-striping. Which is not that uncommon because that puts a lot of load on the surviving disks! Remember, RAID is not a backup.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s why the extra redundancy. The probability of 2 or 3 disks failing should be significantly lower than 1 disk failing. I currently run 2-disk redundancy. If 1 disk fails, I’d replace it. If a second disk fails while the replacement is being resilvered, I’d shit a brick, stop the resilver and make an incremental backup to ensure I won’t lose data if another disk fails due to the resilver load. Then I’d proceed with the resilver. RAID is not backup and the extra redundancy is there to reduce the probability to have to spend time restoring backups. Increased redundancy can compensate for individual disk reliability.