One large capacity drive or two smaller drives for storage?

fowler002

fowler002

fowler002

Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2008
Posts
5,032
Built a new 8700k based pc, I have a 250gb Samsung 960 evo for os and a 500gb crucial mx500 for games with a 850 evo 500gb on it’s way from maplin(£20 cheaper than elsewhere so couldn’t resist). From my old 4770k pc I also have a 830 evo 256gb and 840 evo 250gb which will get replaced by the 850 evo once it gets here.

Well anyway onto the point of the thread, as per title is it better to get one large capacity(looking at 4tb) or two smaller capacity(2x 2tb)? I have two old Samsung spinpoint hard drives, due to their age I think it’s about time I replace them.

Also what make/model is the one to go for these days? I’ve always used Samsung but they were bought by seagate years back.
 
4TB isn't that big these days.
If you buy 2 identical drives at the same time the chances are that they will fail at the same time.

WD Red is probably what you're looking for.
 
mrbazmondo said:
If you buy 2 identical drives at the same time the chances are that they will fail at the same time.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you mean by the 'same time' but extremely unlikely this would happen unless as part of a more serious system failure impacting multiple components (power surge, fire etc). I haven't got any stats to hand but logically, given typical drive failure rates over time, I would imagine it is probably at least an order of magnitude or two more likely that two identical drives would fail independently rather than as a pair.
 
HangTime said:
I guess it depends what you mean by the 'same time' but extremely unlikely this would happen unless as part of a more serious system failure impacting multiple components (power surge, fire etc). I haven't got any stats to hand but logically, given typical drive failure rates over time, I would imagine it is probably at least an order of magnitude or two more likely that two identical drives would fail independently rather than as a pair.
Click to expand...
I suppose the point he's making is that two drives from the same batch are more likely to fail if there was a manufacturing QC issue, or perhaps damage sustained if (for instance) some ham-fisted forklift driver dropped a pallet at the dockyard.

It's a common theory, but I've no idea if there's any hard data to support it in practice.
 
Any suggestions on the brand/models? I was looking at the 3tb or 4tb barracuda due to the price, not building a NAS so not sure I need the REDs or equivalent from other brands.
 
In your case, if you go BarraCuda then it may be better to go 2x2TB, if you're going to be putting them in RAID then it's best to go with NAS-grade drives such as IronWolf or BarraCuda Pro for vibration, workload, and heat considerations. If you're not going RAID, then the benefit of going 2x2TB with the BarraCuda is that capacities 1-3TB of the BarraCuda are 7200 RPM, while 4TB and larger capacities are 5400 RPM. If you go BarraCuda Pro then all capacities (3.5") are 7200 RPM, 300TB per year workload rating, come with 5 year warranty, and 2 free years of Rescue Services.

Thanks for considering Seagate, regardless of which route you decide to go in the end!
 
CaptainCrash said:
I suppose the point he's making is that two drives from the same batch are more likely to fail if there was a manufacturing QC issue, or perhaps damage sustained if (for instance) some ham-fisted forklift driver dropped a pallet at the dockyard.

It's a common theory, but I've no idea if there's any hard data to support it in practice.
Click to expand...

I can understand the theory that two drives from a 'dodgy batch' are more likely to fail than two random drives, but I would dispute that they are likely to fail at the same time.
 
HangTime said:
I can understand the theory that two drives from a 'dodgy batch' are more likely to fail than two random drives, but I would dispute that they are likely to fail at the same time.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not convinced either, at least not at the *exact* same time - in any case if you're sensible you'll work on the basis that any drive *might* fail catastrophically at any time and plan accordingly, so in practice it wouldn't really be a major consideration.

Going back to the OP's question, everything else being equal I'd definitely take a single drive large HDD over multiple smaller ones - less noise, less power consumption, more efficient use of total available capacity, easier data organisation unless you're one of those weird people who likes creating separate partitions for everything, more potential for future expansion if you need it (drive bays, SATA ports) without having to lose any existing storage. I suppose one counter-argument is that spreading your workload across multiple physical drives could theoretically be faster in some circumstances, but if you're doing anything speed-critical these days you should probably be using an SSD or two in any case.
 
HangTime said:
I guess it depends what you mean by the 'same time' but extremely unlikely this would happen unless as part of a more serious system failure impacting multiple components (power surge, fire etc). I haven't got any stats to hand but logically, given typical drive failure rates over time, I would imagine it is probably at least an order of magnitude or two more likely that two identical drives would fail independently rather than as a pair.
Click to expand...
This happens more then you'd think in when drives from the same batch are used in RAID and get identical use. I've heard of companies that roll out new hardware over hundreds of sites and after a number of years they start getting multiple drive failures at loads of sites at the same time.
 
Just a personal choice, but I tend to break down what a PC is doing and use a different drive for each major category. So all my PC's have 250GB system drives and then they may have a games drive, a media drive, a backup drive, a project drive and so on. The reason I like to place major categories on their own drive is because I find it very simple to find stuff that way. You can partition a single drive but on the rare occasion I have had drives hiccup then invariably you lose everything on the drive even if it is partitioned. Keeping stuff on different drives you don't lose everything. Also it means that should you transfer to a new PC all you need to do is move the data drives you want to that new PC. Steam, for example, can just be moved to a new PC and it will be fine.
I usually buy Samsung or Crucial SSD's. As for mechanical, I go for WD Blue. Now they are cheap, but provided you have an identical drive you are using for backup, well, the chances of both failing at the same time is very small indeed, and having two drives like that is way better than spending the same money buying a single quality drive. And honestly I can't even remember the last time one failed.
All drives I try to replace after about five to six years.
 
HangTime said:
I can understand the theory that two drives from a 'dodgy batch' are more likely to fail than two random drives, but I would dispute that they are likely to fail at the same time.
Click to expand...
Similarly weak part or transport damage could cause rather simultaneous failure under similar load.
Most likely that would happen during "infant mortality" or then after some years of heavier use when drives start to get some wear.
 
Thanks for the replies, think I’ll get a 2tb maybe 3tb for the time being. Then later on maybe get a nas “box”, do you have to use raid or can you just have them as separate drives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom