PC Gaming

8492 readers

359 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca

UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com

187

32TB hard drives are incoming according to Toshiba (www.pcgamesn.com)

submitted 5 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm claiming that these 32TB drives will reduce your risk of losing data than by raiding 2 16TB drives, given the same failure rate.

Assuming the probability of failure is the same, you're right, running two drives doubles the risk of a drive failing.

However, if your single 32 TB drive fails, all data is gone and you have to rely on backup. If one of the 16 TB drives fails, you replace it and the RAID restores the data with much less hassle.

Both 16 TB drives failing at once is negligible (however, the RAID controller might).

[–] meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for understanding.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If that is your whole point, you didn't approach it right as you can see with all the downvotes.

You seemingly argued against RAID which was invented for data availability and performance. While it's true, that RAID alone is no backup solution, having just a single drive is more hassle when it fails, so running multiple drives in a RAID allows for better handling despite the higher probability of having to swap a drive.

Another point you did not consider: larger drives have more sectors that can fail. While I have no data for this, a 32 TB drive is unlikely to have the same rate of failure as a 16 TB one - the larger drive will be more likely to fail (not as likely as one of two drives failing though).