3 ms·
> I’m a developer, I can afford it. None of my friends can. Mom definitely can’t. The only thing that can work for your mom and your friend is, in my opinion,
by mrighele 3y ago
> I’m a developer, I can afford it. None of my friends can. Mom definitely can’t.
The only thing that can work for your mom and your friend is, in my opinion, a pair of disks in mirror. When the space finished, buy another box with two other disk in mirror. Anything more than this is not only too complex for the average user but also too expensive.
- hinkley 3y agoKeeping track of a heterogenous drive array is just as big an imposition.
- Quekid5 3y agoI think I would advise against a direct mirroring -- instead, I'd do sync-every-24-hours or something similar. Both schemes are vulnerable to the (admittedly rarer) errors where both drives fail simultaneously (e.g. mobo fried them) or are just ... destroyed by a fire or whatever. A periodic sync (while harder to set up) will occasionally save you from the deleting the wrong files which mirroring doesn't. Either way: Any truly important data (family photos/videos, etc.) needs to be saved periodically to remote storage. There's no getting around that if you really care about the data.
- kalleboo 3y ago> A periodic sync (while harder to set up) will occasionally save you from the deleting the wrong files which mirroring doesn't Which ever solution for disks you end up with, you should definitely always be using something that keeps around periodic snapshots.
- Quekid5 3y agoAgreed, but even that is vulnerable to software bugs around snapshotting itself.
- bartvk 3y agoEven that sounds complex. If they want network attached storage, I’d just use a single disk NAS, and remotely back it up.