Newbie advice: more, lower capacity drives? Or fewer, higher capacity drives?

Is it better to have fewer larger capacity drives, or more lower capacity drives?

  • More drives, all with lower capacity

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Fewer drives, all with larger capacity

    Votes: 11 91.7%

  • Total voters
    12
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.

TerryJ

New Member
Feb 25, 2021
2
2
3
Say I'm comparing 8 x 4TB vs 4 x 8TB for a new RAID-Z2 setup. Or 10 x 4TB vs 5 x 8TB, or 8 x 1TB vs 4 x 2TB - the quantity and capacity of drives is somewhat irrelevant here. This will be for a home NAS, where file integrity is key above all else. There will be very few concurrent users, and I don't plan on hosting VMs or Plex or databases or anything like that on this box.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the total cost of ownership of both choices is identical (so, my case and motherboard can fit as many drives as I need, my electricity provider magically decides to charge me a flat rate for my server regardless of how much power it uses, both new and future replacement drives are identically priced, etc) or at least the price difference is negligible - what are the benefits and drawbacks of each approach? I'm not particularly well versed in this stuff, but here are my assumptions:

More lower capacity drives:

Con: More drives means greater likelihood a drive will fail
Pro: Smaller drives means lesser likelihood another drive will fail during resilver, since resilvering will be quicker
Con: Higher power draw, more heat, more vibration, more noise
Pro: More usable drive space
Con: (theoretically) more difficult to find replacement new drives of the same capacity as time goes on

Logically, the opposite of all of the above would apply to less higher capacity drives:

Pro: Fewer drives means lesser likelihood a drive will fail
Con: Larger drives means more likelihood another drive will fail during resilver, since resilvering will be slower
Pro: Lower power draw, less heat, less vibration, less noise
Con: Less usable drive space
Pro: (theoretically) easier to find replacement new drives of the same capacity as time goes on

What other considerations are there to each approach? Is there a 'correct' answer? Are my assumptions accurate? From what I can tell, more lower capacity drives has the benefit of more usable space and less likelihood of failure (potentially offset by smaller drives generally having an older manufacture date than larger ones), whereas fewer larger drives will have less power usage/heat/vibration, and probably a lower overall cost.

Am I way off the mark here? Any advice is greatly appreciated
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

i386

Well-Known Member
Mar 18, 2016
4,245
1,546
113
34
Germany
more lower capacity drives less likelihood of failure
I voted for fewer, larger drives.

Probably not the best/realistic math:
A 5 tb hdd has (probably) 5 platters, 10 heads, 2 motors (1 for the acutator, 1 for the spindle), 1 pcb/controller.
A 16 tb hdd has 9 platters, 18 heads, 2 motors, 1pcb/controller.

For at least 50tb usable space you will need 12x 5tb in raid6/raidz-2 or 6x 16tb in raid6/raidz-2.

12x (5 + 10 + 2 + 1) parts = 216 parts that could fail for the setup with 5tb hdds
vs
6x (9 + 18 + 2 +1) parts = 180 parts that could fail for the setup with 16tb hdds

(URE or other metrics not considdered :D)

I'm curious what you guys think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

Rand__

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
6,634
1,767
113
Also depends on your workload - more disks can mean faster performance if you have a matching use case...
 

TerryJ

New Member
Feb 25, 2021
2
2
3
Probably not the best/realistic math:
Possibly not entirely correct figures, sure, but it gets the point across - and the point is a very good one. I'd been thinking of each drive as a single holistic unit, rather than a collection of intricate parts, which I think is a much more accurate way of looking at it.

Drive bays cost money: more chassis or disk shelves, more U in the rack, more power, more cooling
They sure do, but that's why I went with "let's assume TCO is the same", I'm trying to determine what the 'right' option is before weighing up whether it's worth shelling out a bit extra for all the stuff you've mentioned, or whether there's not much tangible benefit.

Also depends on your workload - more disks can mean faster performance if you have a matching use case...
That's true, and I probably should have specified this in my original post, so I have edited it to reflect that. This is for a home NAS, I'm not going to be putting any virtual machines or databases or extraneous services on the box, this is just for file storage. 2-3 concurrent users at the most, and that would be relatively rare, so write speed isn't a massive concern. The NAS will be used to store important documents, back up personal photos and videos and various projects etc, so mainly a WORM scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samir

pricklypunter

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2015
1,709
517
113
Canada
There is also something to be said about larger disks, being that bit newer, will also have taken advantage of newer, hopefully more reliable, technologies, making them more reliable over their rated lifespan, and usually well beyond that :)