2.5" or 3.5" drives
-
We are getting ready to build backup server based on a R720 should we look for 2.5" chassis or 3.5" chassis?
I'm thinking the density of the 2.5" chassis would be beneficial for future expansion.
-
But the size of the drive is your restriction.
3.5 have more space -
Both have value, it really comes down to your needs. 2.5" is normally higher cost but with better reliability (just a tiny bit) and better speed (from having more drives.) 3.5" is lower but holds a lot more capacity. So there is no right answer, you have to know your use case.
-
@NETS said in 2.5" or 3.5" drives:
We are getting ready to build backup server based on a R720 should we look for 2.5" chassis or 3.5" chassis?
I'm thinking the density of the 2.5" chassis would be beneficial for future expansion.
1.8 or 2.5 SSDs for performance
3.5 HDD (slow spin) for on-site capacity tier
-
@NETS If you check out HD failure rates the 4TB HD's are extremely reliable. I have no idea how large your backup needs to be though. You are building a newer version of my home server and I chose to go with 4TB drives in a raid 10. I wanted to maximize the capacity and the IOPS was a non issue. Again, depends on what you need out of it.
-
@wirestyle22 said in 2.5" or 3.5" drives:
@NETS If you check out HD failure rates the 4TB HD's are extremely reliable. I have no idea how large your backup needs to be though. You are building a newer version of my home server and I chose to go with 4TB drives in a raid 10. I wanted to maximize the capacity and the IOPS was a non issue. Again, depends on what you need out of it.
Also price. The last server I bought from XByte has 4TB drives in it because they were cheaper than the 2TB drives that was all that I actually needed.
-
And not directly an answer, but SAS drives are not almost identical to SATA drives in price, but handle random access more efficiently. If they are basically the same price, always get SAS.
