Cause yes, this isn't critical data, it's media and can be replaced (though 3TBs worth is a pain to replace lol, but as you said, most of the time it can be recovered).
MOD EDIT - Topic Split from:
Best Answer +BudMan , 25 November 2013 - 15:12
+riahc3 if your talking say 1 or 2 TB even in a raid 5.. with 500 or 750GB disks.. Sure go for it.. If that makes you happy.
Where you have a problem as the arrays get larger and larger and larger is even when the disk fails, your not going to be able to rebuild from parity. The larger the array, the larger the odds that you fail on rebuild. Now your whole freaking array could be lost.
Now if you want to throw up dual bay nas with 2x3TB disk in a Mirror - sure, this is cost effective and could save you lots of time in rerip if disk dies. I am curious about the pre populated nases that have 2 disks in them, did they come from the same batch, made right around the exact same time. What are the odds that both of those disks could fail right around the same time
Here is an article that touches on the issue of recovery.. Its more for the enterprise, etc. And your not going to do data dispersal in a home/smb setup The point to take away from the article is traditional raid is dead or dieing.
I just feel that today, you need to look at what your wanting to accomplish and the best bang for the way to do that. What we want is our digital copies to be easy to access and grow storage as library increases.. This is my needs atleast, the vast majority of my media does not require even backup, let alone parity from a hardware failure to stay online, etc. So why spend money on disks that are going to do nothing for you besides provide parity in a raid.. Seems like money down the drain to me. Could use that money to buy more disks to actual store data on Go to the full post
Edited by Roger H., 22 November 2013 - 01:03. Reason: Topic Split