I found this its the cheapest 10TB Exos drive on Newegg and looking to buy 4 of them. I will be putting them in my NAS that I use for my media library and pc backups. The price I’m posting this is $130, I’m also looking similar Exos drives that are $250 is there a difference? Should I shell up for the more expensive drives?

  • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s just the cheapest type of drive there is. The use case is in large scale RAIDs where one disk failing isn’t a big issue. They tend to have decent warranty but under heavy load they’re not expected to last multiple years. Personally I use drives like this but I make sure to have them in a RAID and with backup, anything else would be foolish. Do also note that expensive NAS drives aren’t guaranteed to last either so a RAID is always recommended.

      • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Make that RAID Z2 my friend. One disk of redundancy is simply not enough. If a disk fails while resilvering, which can and does happen, then your entire array is lost.

        • SexyVetra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hard agree. Regret only using Z1 for my own NAS. Nothings gone wrong yet 🤞but we’ve had to replace all the drives once so far which has led to some buttock clenching.

          When I upgrade, I will not be making the same mistake. (Instead I’ll find shiny new mistakes to make)

          • Archer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Instead I’ll find shiny new mistakes to make

            This should be the community slogan

        • Atemu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You must be running an icredible HA software stack for uptime increases so far behind the decimal to matter.

      • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        For sure higher but still not high, we’re talking single digit percentage failed drives per year with a massive sample size. TCO (total cost of ownership) might still come out ahead for Seagate being that they are many times quite a bit cheaper. Still drives failures are a part of the bargain when you’re running your own NAS so plan for it no matter what drive you end up buying. Which means have cash on hand to buy a new one so you can get up to full integrity as fast as possible. (Best is of course to always have a spare on hand but that isn’t feasible for a lot of us.).

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That tracks with my experience as well. Literally every single Seagate drive I’ve owned has died, while I have decade old WDs that are still trucking along with zero errors. I decided a while back that I was never touching Seagate again.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually had my first WD failure this past month, a 10tb drive I shucked from an easystore years ago (and a couple moves ago). My Synology dropped the disk and I’ve replaced it, and the other 3 in the NAS bought around the same time are chugging away like champs.