Best HDD to store fap material?

>Hitachi

Amazon Cloud

$60 year for unlimited storage.

halp me Cred Forums my current setup is mirror raid, you know, when one hdd breaks second will have the copy, but after reading some shit that second drive will probably break few hours after the first one i think this setup is useless for me, and its also huge waste of space, so ill make non raid and just keep copies of files on backups, so whats the best medium to store backups? cd? hdd? flash drives? i heard that if you dont connect drives for some time to power supply, data will disappear

> no average korean gf
Kill me

Hitachi makes great HDDs

>tfw my spinpoint f3 finally died after 7 years

Can I trust Lelnovo HDDs? There's a sale for them where I live.

WD BLACK RAID 5

D. It's 5400 rpm

Are Toshiba HDDs good?

3.5 inch ones are great yeah, they took over Hitachis product lines

They make the best HDDs.

Back your shit up

All HDDs can fail

OC do not steal

Newer hard drives seem to fail a lot more than they used to. This is anecdotal of course but my old hard drives are still going. I have some over 10 years old that I still use to do things. never had one fail but in the past 4 years I've bought and had 2 WD blue and 1 SG HD fail on me.

>RAID5
t. poorfag

What the actual fuck are you doing to your drives?

The only drives that have died on me are two Samsung F4 EcoGreens, both after 6 years of 24/7 operation

>RAID is a backup solution

Oh boy

Backup = redundancy + immutability

RAID covers redundancy (to a degree). Add an immutable filesystem like zfs and you have yourself a backup

RAID still doesn't help if you delete something on accident or because you're being stupid.

You are also fucked if lightning strikes and destroys your whole machine.

Offsite backup = best backup

>RAID still doesn't help if you delete something on accident or because you're being stupid.
Did you read my post?

Backup = redundancy + immutability

RAID is not a backup. Never has been, never will be.

Do you even know what RAID is?

what is raid?

Backup = redundancy + immutability

RAID covers redundancy (to a degree). Add an immutable filesystem like zfs and you have yourself a backup.

Stands for “redundant array of inexpensive disks”. It's basically a technique to add redundany to a single system by combining multiple inexpensive disks.

If you add immutability, you can form it into a backup. It's not a backup on its own, because backup = redundancy + immutability, and RAID only provides redundancy.

You should get an autism diagnosis to save it on your zfs RAID.

Awesome! When your array burns down in a fire, I'm interested in how using zfs is able to protect your data. Please explain further

ZFS is so cool you can't set it on fire.

When your offsite backup goes up in flames, your data is also gone. You are making a non-argument.

Yes, having more redunancy is better and having spread-out redundancy is also better, but that doesn't change the definition of backup.

Off-premises backups are better than on-premises backups
Backups on a separate machine are better than backups on the same machine
Backups on a separate disk are better than backups on the same disk
Having 10 redundant copies is better than having 1 redundant copy
etc.

Yes, there are different “degrees” of redundancy. Something can be a better or a worse backup.

But that doesn't somehow magically make RAID+immutability *not* a backup, because the definition of a backup is the same: Immutable, redundant storage

>best hdd
no.

If you want backups, you need optical media. It's a pain to burn but they will last fucking decades.

You can also wait a bit until HVDs happen, you'll have fucking 6TB per disc.

Toshiba's p300 are very good

i basically use my brain. i guess thats why my neighbour hates me.

>When your offsite backup goes up in flames, your data is also gone.

No, it will still be on my main machine.

>optical media
>backups
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

The WD10EZEX is 7200.
microcenter.com/product/398271/Blue_1TB_7,200_RPM_SATA_III_60Gb-s_35_Internal_Hard_Drive_WD10EZEX_-_Bare_Drive

How to upload my 20 TB porn collection to my brain?

fuck me user, the chick in the middle has her ankles touching and her knees not. my god that would ussually spell a gap from heaven, except if you look up there is no gap. is she a walking orgasm ???

relax bro, apparently you only use 10%

cd-info.com/archiving/longevity/

you go ahead and try to keep an HDD going for more than 15 years.

Best external drive?

>you go ahead and try to keep an HDD going for more than 15 years.
Why the fuck would I? I'll be upgrading regularly as storage capacities increase.

Also I've got HDDs that are over 20 years old and still work just fine.

>Missing the point
Yes, and when only one of your drives dies, you will still have a copy on the other drive in RAID as well.

Redundancy is redundancy, no matter what level it's on.

Drive-level redundancy protects you against loss of a drive.
Controller-level redundancy protects you against loss of a controller
Machine-level redundancy protects you against loss of a machine
Rack-level redundancy protects you against loss of a rack
Cluster-level redundancy protects you against loss of a cluster
Datacenter-level redundancy protects you against loss of a datacenter
Planet-level redundancy protects you against loss of a planet

Where do you draw the line? The answer: Wherever your budget meets your risk assessment.

However, that doesn't change the simple fact that all of these are examples of redundancy. You can't argue that RAID isn't redundant because you could lose all your drives at the same time without also arguing that off-site backups are not redundant because somebody could nuke the entire continent.

I might have something for you:
youtube.com/watch?v=FgeKRhKERYw&index=1&list=PLKLtJ4FU3BHDQIxGgfDRAYOftpLfuGMMr

best hdd to store cp-izza?

we're talking backups here lad

intel, running Windows 10 and connected to the internet.

So am I dumbass

whatever lad, when we get old we'll see who's enjoying his anime porn in a retirement home and who's sad and lonely depending on the SJW controlled zuckernet fapping to lingerie ads

What in the everliving fuck are you on about?

a 5200rpm NAS drive. memes aside, they have less wear due to the way they spin up and down and better head crash prevention. also, get a fucking nas, they're not expensive. store your animu on that and just access it when you want to fap. if your storage is on your pc it's going to be wearing the drive more and more.

kek you bought from the bad batch. the good batch costs more than WD. there is a shit batch from a flooded thai warehouse going around for like 70bux on amazon. sure you get warranty but I sure as fuck wouldnt use it in anything less than a raid6

i second this

failing that just get in the bath with your hdds and a toaster - it'll back em up

Recommend me a NAS.. doesnt have to include HDDs

>wd black
you know black doesnt have firmware that is compatible with a raid controller right? you will be rebuilding that fucker constantly. the red drives defer control to the RAID controller before flagging themselves as faulty and trying to rebuild. the black and blue drives will randomly report faults constantly.

Cheap 2 bay Synology if that is enough storage for you

Otherwise build your own

I was just about to ask you about the Synology DS216j. seems like a decent choice then

praise the lord. its anons like you that really make the day. i just wish someone could kill that faggot screaming in the background.

So Synology DS216j with 2 1tb WD Red drives is good for RAID file storage?

I have had a DS214se running 2x WD Red 6 TB for almost 2 years without any issues.
Constantly seeding 2 TB worth of torrents as well. Works like a charm.

You are welcome friend. Have some more Kara,

Forgot to go lower, too

Block/sector-level redundancy protects you against loss of a block/sector
Bit-level redundancy protects you against loss of a bit

Every single redundanct level I have listed (except “planet-level redundancy”, obviously) is used in practice, because they provide different levels of safety for different people with different needs.

thats a whole load of torrents whats your internet speed like? Im getting about 30down and 10up atm

synology or qnap are good. a six bay one will set you back about 400usd tho.
there is an option to use a certain asrock avaton based board that comes with 12 sata ports or get a server board. depends on how much you want to spend.

Just use 2 different hdd brands

Your grandma's dell

honestly i sort of feel like a two bay will be enough especially with the size of HDD's these days

oh until you hit four disks you dont actually get redundancy. unless you run it as a raid mirror. which means a 1:1 copy. which means with that setup your total formatted storage capacity will be under 1TB. thats a fugging expensive way to have a tb hard drive.

My internet is shit: 5 Mbps down, half a Mbps up.
But I am a jpopsuki member and get points for every torrent I seed no matter how slow.

Up to 4 drives, maybe Synology, QNAP or the cheap fast Zyxel.

More than that? Definitely build your own.

Nope, can be redundant from 2 drives onward. 2 drives obviously has to be a mirror. 3 drives can already be "proper" RAID5

I got a qnap on the cheap. qnap has a shitty bug where you need to go into shell and tell it to install the latest version of samba or it uses an older version for compatibility i assume. I bought an iomega home cloud edition ages ago and the hard drive inside just died right after backing it up to my new nas, so now i will have two home nas devices. desu i only have like a gigabyte of shit i actually need to backup that i cant just dl again and a handful of rare movies. all i lost was an episode of sum pirate show.

A raid mirror as in RAID 1 ? About how much HDD space would i lose from each.

The Synology DS416j is more expensive than i was hoping unfortunately.

Whats the difference between mirror (raid 1 right?) and raid5

Using 1 TB drives in a NAS is terrible value.
Use the biggest drives you can get in a JBOD and do backups on cheap external drives

Thing is i dont ever think ill need to backup more than 1tb of data its just home/personal shit

in a mirror you lose an entire drive worth of capacity.

raid 1 is a 1:1 copy
raid5, however many drives in the raid , lets say there are 4. a quarter of each drive is now a hash of contents of the others so if one drive dies, the data can be recovered from the hash tables by adding them together.

So would you say Raid1 is worth it for a home storage? It does sort of seem to be a waste to lose a whole tb of storage

then just get a 2tb drive for your computer, store your shit on it, and back it up to a usb drive. I think we mostly use a NAS not just for backups but also, you can watch whatever anime on any device, phone, tv, computer without needing to shift around a usb drive. fancier ones can also encode, be a seedbox, serve webpages and PXE.

>"proper" RAID5
kek

Also, you can get redundancy on a single drive as well, just not on the drive level. (For example zfs -o numcopies=2, btrfs -ddup, or simply making a mirror of two partitions)

Is it redundancy? Yes
Will it protect you against corrupt sectors and bit flips? Yes
Will it protect you against drive loss? No

i dont think id be able to find a usb drive worth getting to backup what i want to backup probably about 300gb of the 1tb, But using the media on it on multiple devices was a goal of mine,

If its stuff like home movies of your kids and precious memory kinda shit like wedding photos and whatever, definitely invest in a raid1. if its just animu and you dont want to redownload it then yeah its just overkill, keep a copy and make sure you replace the drive every two years or so. a hard drive failure is rarely utterly fatal, you'll just lose a few movies and episodes when sectors go bad. if its shit you never want to lose, then store it in the cloud and in cold storage. a nas is only if you want to be on hand constantly.

Well, it's a spectrum. What trade-offs do you need to make? For the common raid levels, you can sort them something like this:

RAID0 < RAID5 < RAID6 < RAID-Z3 (triple parity) < RAID10

Where left means higher capacity capacity and higher risk of failure, right means lower capacity and lower risk of failure. Of course, there are other tradeoffs to make too, for example performance, recovery time, throughput vs latency, etc.

The general advice would be to go for RAID10 if you have the money. It provides the lowest risk of data loss and the best performance out of all the above listed levels. The only downside to RAID10, obviously, is the need to spend more on it. So it depends on whether or not you have the money, really. How much do you value your data?

For my animes and hentai, I go for RAID10, because hard drives are not really that expensive compared to what I spend on the rest of my PC.

Yeah its shit id never be able to get every again mainly. I dont watch anime so that wouldnt be a problem lol, Ive had a hitachi in my pc for like 3-4 years and its going strong atm but i fear its going to die soon randomly, Also i just dont really trust cloud servers honestly

Isnt RAID0 often called suicide raid because its super unsafe ? Sorry i dont know a ton about RAIDs

oh i meant an external hard drive not a flash key. flash is absolutely terrible for archival purposes dont do this. most nas products have a backup button that you can configure where you plug in a use drive, press the button and it backs up the entire drive to the nas or from the nas to the drive or whatever folders you configure to backup. do this once a week or after important events and youre good.

thanks did not know. tell me more about zfs

RAID0 provides no redundancy. If you lose a single bit/block/drive/whatever, you lose your entire pool.

RAID5 is much better for storage than RAID10.

Infact there is no reason to use RAID10 at all in a world where relatively cheap SSDs exist.

Hmmm, I sort of feel like a nas would be better for me, what do you think? RAID1 2x1tb WDRed 2 bay Synology?

>4 years
you already have corrupt sectors
you will only find them when you go to backup stuff and some files just wont copy. they might be important files or just install files but somewhere they are there.

4tb drives only costs twice as much

I forgot to mention, Like 5 days ago i unplugged that HDD and bought my first SSD - 850evo. Whats the best way to find these corrupt sectors next time i plug in the HDD? I unplugged it due to installing w10. By unplugged i just mean i removed the sata data cable

Hmm i cant see 1tb wd red on the uk site however the 2tb are £85 and the 4tb are £140 which is less than half, not too bad honestly

>Infact there is no reason to use RAID10 at all in a world where relatively cheap SSDs exist.

say you want to build a 10TB array and you are not running extremely heavy I/O workloads

use HDDs:
>6x4 TB HGST UltraStar 7.2k RPM enterprise drives in RAID10, 2 TB storage extra, high safety, cheap recovery. easy to connect
1200€ total

use SSDs:
>21x500 GB consumer trash SATA SSDs in RAID5, performance crippled during rebuild, need to invest in extra controllers and mounting, extremely susceptible to simultaneous failure
2100€ total

wow, you sure opened my eyes!

>10 TB
>not running extremely heavy I/O workloads
Then why not just run your HDDs in RAID5 or JBOD?

I wonder if those chink missus are beautiful to their standards

they look like washed out ugly white women

what is jbod?

>Why not RAID5?

1. It's extremely susceptible to data loss due to double-failure. Rebuilding a RAID5 is very I/O intensive across the entire pool. The chance of losing a second drive during that process is very high. The “RAID5 is a bad idea” mantra from 5-10 years ago is not even applicable to modern drives anymore, because drive sizes have increased to the point where it's orders of magnitude worse.

2. Rebuilds with RAID5 take a long time and completely cripple your performance. Even if a HDD is fine for your purposes, a pool that is currently busy restriping will be _many_ times worse.

>or JBOD
You mean JBOD in the sense of redundancy-less pooling (i.e. equivalent to RAID0)? If so, isn't it obvious?

External drives shot out on me all the time but I've never had an internal die except my pre-2000 4GB.

jbod is spanned. it means your computer sees many discs as a single disk. terrible if your files are fragmented because you can lose one drive and many files from all of them.

thats the advantage of a home NAS. each time you move the hard drive you damage it. when you dont wait for it to completely spin down then move it, each time you dont properly eject it, each time you drop it.

So JBOD pretty much makes your pc think HDDs are merged?

>jbod is spanned. it means your computer sees many discs as a single disk.
Everywhere I see the term ‘JBOD’ used it refers to literally the exact opposite: i.e. your computer just sees a bunch of disks, rather than any “virtual” disks or other abstractions.

It's meant to distinguish hardware RAID controllers between their “RAID” modes (in which they do stupid things and prevent virtual abstractions that make it hard to provide software redundancy/atomicity guarantees) and their “JBOD” modes in which they just act as passive host bus adapters.

Anyway, it's a shit term. If you want to refer to pooling multiple disks together with no redundancy, just use RAID0. The distinction between striping and pooling is irrelevant for this context. (Or, yknow, just call it “pooling” or “LVM”)

Hitachi in my experience is the absolute best