Are two drives Safer than One for same capacity?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

...Although I see no point in a 4tb partition split in half is more logical but then again I'm not one that needs a 4tb hdd if it goes bad allot of data goes down with it and not very realistic to even backup a 4tb hdd either.

You are pretty bright so I can't believe you said that! Why on earth would you believe it isn't realistic to back up a 4TB HDD?

Before I switched over to all SSDs, I backed up a 4TB drive all the time without trouble. I now have three 4TB SSDs with data on them and have no trouble backing them up. I would rather have to back up a single 4TB drive than two 2TB drives since it would require fewer backup drives to store and lug around and fewer steps to perform the backups.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Mainly because too big to fail plus large hdd's are not as cheap as say 1 or 2tb it just depends on how much one is willing to pay I suppose

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi,
Mainly because too big to fail plus large hdd's are not as cheap as say 1 or 2tb it just depends on how much one is willing to pay I suppose

Ok, you just strained the one functioning brain cell of the three I have left. What do you mean by too big to fail?

One 2TB WD Blue costs $70. One 4TB WD Blue is $120. I this case, two 2TB drives would cost $20 more than one 4TB drive. Of course, if one doesn't need more than 1-2TB and does not anticipate ever needing more than that, then it makes more sense not to get a larger drive. But, if one does need the larger capacity or anticipates needing more soon, then buying the one larger drive would make more economical sense than buying smaller drives.

As far as a larger drive having more data to lose all at once than a smaller drive, it doesn't really matter as long as that data has been backed up. If one use the appropriate backup software, backing up the same amount of new and changed data on a single, larger drive will take less time than on smaller multiple drives.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Simply I'd rather a 1-2tb drive fail than a 4tb drive it hurts half as much

Not to mention loading a 1-2tb drive takes half the time.

 

[AddRAM]

I went big with 2 4TB`s, less space, less power

Removed an entire drive cage, but aaaaaah what does it matter, new case coming tomorrow.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi,
Simply I'd rather a 1-2tb drive fail than a 4tb drive it hurts half as much

Not to mention loading a 1-2tb drive takes half the time.

It won't hurt at all if you have your data backed up and you get a good drive with a five year warranty.

I don't understand what you mean about loading a 1-2TB drive takes half the time.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I went big with 2 4TB`s, less space, less power

Removed an entire drive cage, but aaaaaah what does it matter, new case coming tomorrow.

Not to mention fewer SATA ports are needed.

 

[AddRAM]

The new case has 4 vertical ssd trays so I can add another 4 TB if ever I need one.

 

[Layback Bear]

How long do we have to wait Brian before you let us know what your new case is?

I don't understand all the (xxxx) about 2TB or 4TB hard drives. Use what ever you need or want.


Jack

 

[Barman58]

:focus: I thought Maybe it would be better if this discussion was transferred elsewhere :focus:

 

[SCANNERMAN777]

Wow. Some of you peeps must really be rolling in it. A brand new, non-refurb 2TB klunk drive with a 5 year warranty for only 70 bucks??? Not in the universe I live in. I paid that much Canadian for my WD BLUE 1TB and thought I got a good deal on Amazon. What's up with all the 4TB SSDs? One of those would cost me my left kidney and a few other unmentionables I'm sure. I settled for running 4X240GB Kingston Hyper X's in RAID 10 and they seem to fit the bill rather nicely on my LSI RAID card (despite the Sand Force drivers). If I need storage I can always page file to my klunk drives while I keep the active material running on my RAID. Of course all of this will be backed up on my 3TB Seagate Klunker and if I have any overflow to concern myself with there's always the WD (gag me green) 5200 rpm external abomination I never use anymore. :::sigh::: My life is an empty MY BOOK.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Wow. Some of you peeps must really be rolling in it. A brand new, non-refurb 2TB klunk drive with a 5 year warranty for only 70 bucks??? Not in the universe I live in. I paid that much Canadian for my WD BLUE 1TB and thought I got a good deal on Amazon. What's up with all the 4TB SSDs? One of those would cost me my left kidney and a few other unmentionables I'm sure. I settled for running 4X240GB Kingston Hyper X's in RAID 10 and they seem to fit the bill rather nicely on my LSI RAID card (despite the Sand Force drivers). If I need storage I can always page file to my klunk drives while I keep the active material running on my RAID. Of course all of this will be backed up on my 3TB Seagate Klunker and if I have any overflow to concern myself with there's always the WD (gag me green) 5200 rpm external abomination I never use anymore. :::sigh::: My life is an empty MY BOOK.

Wow! What have you been rolling in? I used the Blues as an example for the difference in pricing between two smaller drives and one larger drive. My reference to a drive with a five year warranty was in a completely different post addressing a different issue. Btw, Canadian prices are almost always higher than here in the U.S.

Sure the 4TB SSDs are expensive (mine cost me a new truck; the old one will have to do for several more years). So what? No one is making you buy one. Some of us feel they are worth the money to gain the advantages we feel they have (for me, reduced weight, a huge improvement at my age, and size and increased speed) and we need the capacity.

I've had over a dozen WD Greens. The first one was one of the early Greens that had the repetitive head parking issue. It also never should have been installed as a boot drive by the supposedly reputable computer chain that installed it (one of the reasons I learned how to build and work on my own computers myself). It was the only one of the 13 to actually die. A second Green started throwing reallocation errors shortly before the warranty expired. It was quickly replaced under warranty by WD. The other Greens were still in good condition when I retired them a few months ago. In my experience, WD Greens are excellent backup drives (I preferred Blacks in my computer because of the Blacks longer warranty, higher speed, and the 24/7 operation of my computer).

Seagates, on the other hand... I've had nothing but problems with their 3.5" drives.

 

[RolandJS]

LadyF, getting back to the topic of backing up 2TB, 4TB, and so on...does it not take more time to backup 4TBs worth of data than 2TBs worth of data? End-users simply have allocate time to do proper backups, correct? As you indicated elsewhere on this forum, without restorable backups, one would have re-install, re-download, re-set up, re-configure, all of one's stuff.

 

[SCANNERMAN777]

Wow! What have you been rolling in? I used the Blues as an example for the difference in pricing between two smaller drives and one larger drive. My reference to a drive with a five year warranty was in a completely different post addressing a different issue. Btw, Canadian prices are almost always higher than here in the U.S.

Sure the 4TB SSDs are expensive (mine cost me a new truck; the old one will have to do for several more years). So what? No one is making you buy one. Some of us feel they are worth the money to gain the advantages we feel they have (for me, reduced weight, a huge improvement at my age, and size and increased speed) and we need the capacity.

I've had over a dozen WD Greens. The first one was one of the early Greens that had the repetitive head parking issue. It also never should have been installed as a boot drive by the supposedly reputable computer chain that installed it (one of the reasons I learned how to build and work on my own computers myself). It was the only one of the 13 to actually die. A second Green started throwing reallocation errors shortly before the warranty expired. It was quickly replaced under warranty by WD. The other Greens were still in good condition when I retired them a few months ago. In my experience, WD Greens are excellent backup drives (I preferred Blacks in my computer because of the Blacks longer warranty, higher speed, and the 24/7 operation of my computer).

Seagates, on the other hand... I've had nothing but problems with their 3.5" drives.

LADY FITZ... Come on, it's me... Your old buddy, Scannerman . Come on, cut me some slack here. I was tired and I did address the thread in toto as opposed to any single post (or at least I tried to before going to bed). Yes indeed, prices in Canada are considerably more expensive dollar per dollar. In fact, right now it is horrid @ 72 cents Canadian on the Federal Fiat Funny Munny -- but life in Canada goes on, or at least tries to. I'd be quite the hypocrite if I were criticizing you for your exorbitant purchase after what I just managed to acquire after careful scrutinizing and blatant spending. That said, I'm not rolling in new truck money either. Alas, if this keeps up my PC could soon be pushing the 5K mark as far as dollars is concerned. Glad you got those SSDs you always wanted. I got my 40 lanes and the band width I wanted. And yes, yes, yes... My Book was the first (and last) WD Green I ever purchased. I do not advise that anyone uses these hard drives except perhaps as a temporary measure before making a quick data transfer (if such a thing is possible with a WD GREEN). I have 3 cratered Seagate Barracudas sitting in my store room as science project materials and I dare say I'm not a Seagate fan boy but WD is no different. At the end of the day all hard drives die. Klunk drives are Klunk drives but they still have their place in the grand scheme of things. As it currently stands I have as many SSD's in my new build as I do klunk drives, bringing the total to 12 internal drives with 4 more Sata/SAS and two more SATA ports to spare. I was thinking about going SAS but it probably isn't practical anymore. I certainly agree that if you have the coin SDDs are the way to go. I apologize if I said anything wrong.

 

[SCANNERMAN777]

The BEAUTY OF SSDs

LadyF, getting back to the topic of backing up 2TB, 4TB, and so on...does it not take more time to backup 4TBs worth of data than 2TBs worth of data?

That's the beauty of SSDs, Roland. The amount of time spent backing up 2TB of data vs 4TB of data via SSDs is really negligible -- especially in the case of high performance SSDs. I'm not at the stage where I can afford to keep my B.U. on SSDs however. Methinks this is the common conundrum for most folks. A high abundance of RAM might help a little with the data transfer from SSD to klunk drive but for the time being it's the best I can do with what I have. Yup. Everything takes time... The enumerator of all our endeavors.