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

Selfhosted

40382 readers
383 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
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)