• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 21st, 2024

help-circle













  • What bugs me the most right now (and doesn’t quite get addressed in this article) is low performance standards.

    I’d add low control standards. Since everything is a console port now, everything needs to be dumbed down to be playable by controller. That’s why we don’t see certain genres much any more (sims or RTS) and get shooters with included aim “aids” or cross-play wouldn’t be possible.


  • If that is your whole point, you didn’t approach it right as you can see with all the downvotes.

    You seemingly argued against RAID which was invented for data availability and performance. While it’s true, that RAID alone is no backup solution, having just a single drive is more hassle when it fails, so running multiple drives in a RAID allows for better handling despite the higher probability of having to swap a drive.

    Another point you did not consider: larger drives have more sectors that can fail. While I have no data for this, a 32 TB drive is unlikely to have the same rate of failure as a 16 TB one - the larger drive will be more likely to fail (not as likely as one of two drives failing though).


  • I’m claiming that these 32TB drives will reduce your risk of losing data than by raiding 2 16TB drives, given the same failure rate.

    Assuming the probability of failure is the same, you’re right, running two drives doubles the risk of a drive failing.

    However, if your single 32 TB drive fails, all data is gone and you have to rely on backup. If one of the 16 TB drives fails, you replace it and the RAID restores the data with much less hassle.

    Both 16 TB drives failing at once is negligible (however, the RAID controller might).