Comment on Cheapest 14x4tb NAS
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 days ago20W/drive means 200Wh for 10 drives. That’s 30x24x0.2 kWh each month. At 0.20€/kWh, that’s 28€/month, cheaper than a 20TB Hetzner box. That’s assuming all drives are always spinning, as an idle drive uses more like 5W.
Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 2 days ago
10x4tb = 40tb can be achieved with 4 12tb drives (actually 36tb in raid5) .
Doubtfully those 12tb uses much more power than the 4tb ones, each. So the 28€/m probably cut down to 14,€/m counted in excess.
Considering 120m (10y) of uptime, you should save enough to justify cutting down from 10 to 4 drives.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2 days ago
But going with more smaller drives gives you higher IO and the ability to have more concurrent failures before disaster. Losing a disk during resilvering is horrible when you’re only running with 1 redundant drive normally.
Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu 2 days ago
Yes, more redindancy is good and indeed worth having. Still 5 12tb drives are probably yet more energy and heat efficient than 10 4tb ones.
Even if I had 10 4tb for free I wouldn’t use them. Maybe a couple for backup reasons or cold storage, but not active 24/7 for a domestic raid environment.
I actually have 4 6tb hdds that I dismissed for the 4 8tb sdds, and I use two for local backup and keep two spares to replace them when they will fail.
4 8tb in raid5 provide 24tb total space that its far more than I need, and the risk of a double failure is mitogated by a proper 3,2,1 backup strategy in place.