Multiple drives of a lower (1-2tb) capacity might be more expensive, but they’d technically be more resistant to a single failure over fewer larger (4tb+) drives when in a pool/array.
You must log in or register to comment.
Larger drives, because less power consumption.
Also less overall failures to deal with, if you have 10 drives vs 2 drives the chance of failure is higher.
Especially with 12TB drives being under $100 now for refurbs.
I think it depends on what you’re storing. If it’s video then you’ll want bigger drives because you’ll fill your array of small drives up quickly and trying to manage 10 or 15 1TB HDDs will get out of hand quickly. Backing up isn’t super critical with large “Linux ISOs” since you can just torrent most everything again to replace missing files.
For fast throughput of small files, I think smaller drives in an array win out and if these are important files, it probably wouldn’t be too expensive to buy a couple of large HDDs to backup the entire array.
Price is king for me! I optimize for lowest price per TB with good quality drives.
After that I agree with the other responses on here. With price being a wash, I prefer larger drives for less hands-on replacement and lower power usage.
Large drives. 1-2TB are dysproportionally expensive, you need an expensive mainboard to connect a bunch of them. More drives means more failures…
