Selfhosted

40132 readers

536 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:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

What are good harddrives to use with servers (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by ryan_harg@discuss.tchncs.de to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have quite an extensive collection of media that my server makes available through different means (Jellyfin, NFS, mostly). One of my harddrives has some concerning smart values so I want to replace it. What are good harddrives to buy today? Are there any important tech specs to look out for? In the past I didn't give this too much attention and it didn't bite me, yet. But if I'm gonna buy a new drive now, I might as well...

I'm looking for something from 4TB upwards. I think I remember that drives with very high capacity are more likely to fail sooner - is that correct? How about different brands - do any have particularly good or bad reputation?

Thanks for any hints!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] femtech@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yep, I have 6 14tb drives from them in raid10.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Three-way mirror?

[–] femtech@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

I just keep adding 2 more drives as it gets full. Not sure if that's the best thing.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I would not trust these kind of dives in the mirror. IMHO RAID6 is the only way.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Due to risk of failure or risk of data corruption because the mirror can't tell which drive is right when there's a difference?

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The second one.

Mirroring is good for speed, but a storage mechanism with parity checks will always be more recoverable. And you will have far more storage available.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think data checksums allow ZFS to tell which disk has the correct data when there's a mismatch in a mirror, eliminating the need for 3-way mirror to deal with bit flips and such. A traditional mirror like mdraid would need 3 disks to do this.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago

ZFS or BTRF mirror will know which side is at fault due to checksums. I'm more concern about simultaneous falures of two disks. Rebuilding of a RAID puts lots of pressure on remaining disks, so probability that remaining one dies too is much higher. with RAID6 3 disks need to die to lost date, which is less likely but not impossible.

[–] peregus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

IMHO RAID6 is the only way.

Or SnapRaid