Hello, I’m relatively new to self-hosting and recently started using Unraid, which I find fantastic! I’m now considering upgrading my storage capacity by purchasing either an 8TB or 10TB hard drive. I’m exploring both new and used options to find the best deal. However, I’ve noticed that prices vary based on the specific category of hard drive (e.g., Seagate’s IronWolf for NAS or Firecuda for gaming). I’m unsure about the significance of these different categories. Would using a gaming or surveillance hard drive impact the performance of my NAS setup?
I think this really depends on what you’re storing. I have a large media collection and doing full redundancy would be extremely wasteful, but it’s fairly easy to repopulate things if something goes awry. If it’s irreplaceable or smaller files, redundancy definitely makes sense.
Sure but technically non-redundant schemes also fall under the category. E.g. RAID0, multiple non-redundant ZFS vdevs, etc. Those would be reducing the performance effects of single disks.
Wasn’t sure if that mattered or not in the case of Unraid. Had a feeling that only counted for the size of the disk. Just trying to make sure im not buying an expensive 10TB that I wont be able to use :P
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
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).
Yes three are differences but you’re running a redundant array of independent disks in order not to care about those differences.
I think this really depends on what you’re storing. I have a large media collection and doing full redundancy would be extremely wasteful, but it’s fairly easy to repopulate things if something goes awry. If it’s irreplaceable or smaller files, redundancy definitely makes sense.
Sure but technically non-redundant schemes also fall under the category. E.g. RAID0, multiple non-redundant ZFS vdevs, etc. Those would be reducing the performance effects of single disks.
Wasn’t sure if that mattered or not in the case of Unraid. Had a feeling that only counted for the size of the disk. Just trying to make sure im not buying an expensive 10TB that I wont be able to use :P