I’m the opposite: I migrated 2 4TB drives from my first NAS into the actual one. The drives are going strong and nearing ten years (!) of run time. Two out of eight drives died in this server since 2017. Both were newer. I’m not going to change a single disk before it dies. Most value for money in my opinion.
But I can afford this „risk“: My server has a redundancy of 2 disks. It has a local USB backup, is mirrored to two remote servers in different locations with local backups as well.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
NAS is another option instead of relying on random assortment of drives.
But it’s most cost-effective to use cold storage like Backblaze if you don’t need to access that data and just want to archive it.
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
What I meant by drives are NAS. I buy the drives on sale spin up a new array, migrate the data, and redirect the mount point.
I use to cold store until I realized that unless I have access to it, it might as well not exist. Now I keep everything live, even backups going back to 1997.
The only data I have “lost” are copies of my old warez CDs from eastern Europe because I have no idea where I have stashed them, and a pack of Zip Disks because I have no functioning Zip Drive.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
Phew, I was imagining a closet of drives. NAS is great.
Cold storage is always controversial as you are storing it on someone else’s hardware, but it is by far the most cost-effective option. Just a single month’s electricity cost in some places can match years of cold storage.
Using both of course is recommended, as cold storage acts as another backup vector in case your own storage ever gets catastrophic failure due to fire or flooding. 3-2-1 rule and all. But cost is always a factor in people using the best practices.